Reflection Prompt

Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Hume has left science in an uncomfortable position. We can’t prove that the future will resemble the past. We can’t observe necessary connections in nature — only constant conjunctions. The rational foundations we thought we had turn out to be habits of mind. Yet science works. It produces reliable predictions. It saves lives and builds bridges.

What should we make of all this? These two questions ask you to take a position and defend it.

Question 1 — Hume and Science

Hume shows that inductive reasoning — the kind that underlies all of science — cannot be rationally justified. We believe the sun will rise tomorrow not because reason tells us it must, but because habit and custom have trained us to expect it. Yet science, built entirely on inductive reasoning, is arguably the most successful human enterprise in history. How should we respond to this tension? Is Hume right that science rests on an unjustifiable assumption, and if so, does that matter? Or is there a way to defend the rationality of scientific reasoning that Hume missed?

Question 2 — The Is/Ought Gap

Hume argues that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" — that no amount of factual information about the world, by itself, tells you what you should do. Do you agree? Can you think of a real-world moral argument that seems to cross this gap successfully? Or does every such argument turn out to smuggle in a hidden normative premise?

Your Reflection

This is a thinking space — your response is not saved or submitted. Copy your work if you want to keep it.