Problems with Induction

• inductive arguments are not valid logical arguments i.e they are ampliative
• the principle of induction cannot not be logically deduced from experience
• there is ambiguity with respect to the constituent requirements for valid inductive inference
• ignorance of the theory dependent basis of observation
• the impossibility of constructing an account of induction that avoids the consequence that the probability of an universal statement making claims about nature is zero, regardless of the observational evidence
• ascribing non-zero probabilities to individual rather than universal predictions is epistemologically counter-intuitive
• universal statements are inevitably involved in the estimation of the likelihood of a given prediction being successful. Thus once universal statements are involved in any significant way, the probabilities of the correctness of individual predictions again threatens to be zero
• scientific progress is viewed as an ahistorical acultural process
• ignorance of the role of theory and metaphysical speculation in scientific progress

• Inductive arguments are not erosion proof
• Hume's refutation of induction
• Ambiguity of the Constituent components of the Inductive framework
• The theory dependence of observation
  • Visual experience are not determined by the images on the retina
  • Observation statements presuppose theory