David Hume's Criticism of Induction

There is nothing so cheap as nihilism--and in philosophy, nothing so cheap as epistemological nihilism. The reality is that, as any even slightly serious student of the scientific method knows, even the most well-grounded knowledge claims come with qualifications, with fine print. What the epistemological nihilist does is to pretend that this fine print is a discovery new to the world as they scream about it so loudly and at such length that eventually those of weaker mind can think of nothing else, while a certain kind of pseudo-intellectual does not even have to have their minds broken down that way before falling into line with such nonsense. These persons, after all, are, as Eugene Earnshaw put it, "sadistic contrarians" that delight in "making people feel stupid" by appearing to prove that false propositions are true."

Alas, the weak-minded and pseudo-intellectual are no rarer in this time than any other, and frankly, probably more common. Indeed, in certain corners of academia and culture being such a person is probably a career requirement.

David Hume's attack on induction has always struck me as exemplary of that sort of screaming that so impresses the weak-minded and delights the pseudo-intellectual. And it was thus refreshing to see Dr. Earnshaw point out the obvious--which is that, if far too few card-carrying philosophers paid attention to them, remind us that over the years many have debunked Hume again and again in many different ways (pragmatism, mathematical probability, and best of all for he was thus "hoist by his own petard," a subtler grasp of induction than Hume ever displayed), to the extent that his "argument" ever needed to be debunked at all. It is all the more refreshing in as this particular bit of such screaming gets such a ridiculous amount of respect, and in turn makes Hume's one of those names with which those who prefer to drop names rather than actually read books like to beat their opponents over the head with in argument.