Critique of Hume's skeptical solution in regards to Salmon's worry

It is my claim that the naturalized epistemology interpretation of Hume’s skeptical solution adequately answers Salmon’s worry and, through my own interpretation, justifies the “serious gap”. I will do this by explaining what the “gap” could be, how this “gap” plays an important role in explaining how understanding works and why it is not an indication of irrationality.

    A successful inductive argument justifies its conclusion only if we are independently justified in accepting the principle of the uniformity of nature or PUN. The principle in question infers that there are inherently two sides to all things. Anybody can accept that there exists an up and down, forward and back, light and dark, limited and unlimited, odd and even, one to many, male and female, resting and moving, straight and curved. In geometry a line is defined by two points or two circles(Lundy, p. 14). Even in physics with hot and cold, entropy and order, positive and negative charges, the PUN stands. My claim has 3 stanzas: One, principles of the uniformity of nature can be justified by supporting it with deductive claims and are not solely dependent upon inductive claims, two, the PUN still stands but understanding is gained when supplemented by deductive claims and , finally, that Salmon’s worry is unfounded because the “gap” is merely the expansion of human capacity to learn and is not an indication of irrationality.

When considering the merits of inductive processes, it is paramount to understand what we are saying.

The very nature of the word induction contains the in-prefix. This prefix alludes to the negative, or opposite, form of another. For example; indecisive, inadequate, inexpensive and inorganic. This means there must be something to be compared with.

The word deduction contains the de-prefix. This alludes to the necessity of a precluding entity. Words like; derive, decompose, define, deregulate. These words infer that we; not, do the opposite of or undo. The word is constructed to be related to another word. This seems, to me, to be heavy nod to my previous statement about dualism being a PUN.

Thus our language has an effect upon our logical precession of exploring the merits of inductive reasoning based upon principles of the uniformity of nature. What is this opposite to which the prefix “in” in induction alludes to? The only opposite to which makes logical sense in this context is the process of deduction. The twoness of these words point at each other and are seemingly diametrically opposed. So it is my argument that inductive processes hold no merit unless held up to the light of deductive processes and vise versa.

Keeping in mind the reference inductive and deductive processes have with one another, let’s explore why there seems to be such a gap between the two processes. It is natural for us to make an object of the other when considering the merits of one. We place ourselves on opposite sides of this coin to evaluate the other side. ‘It is there, other, that not this, and essential as a basis for comparison, the method by which our minds know things’(Lundy, p. 14), we fall into the same inductive cycle of logic. The presupposition that the two are separate. The idea that these two methods can hold up on their own is ludicrous. We depend upon these two methods in order to expand our selves. This is the very mechanism to which we obtain knowledge. In this sense, empirical knowledge does arise from a way of life (custom and habit) but does follow a set of rules. Habits and customs in this case being empirical methods/findings and the rules of logic linking our findings, through deduction, to ourselves or the one.

Just as a telescope can see further as its diameter gets larger, so too does our capacity for knowledge work. As we gain more knowledge, our ability to analyze an idea by taking opposing positions grows. Creating a vast gap between our inductive analysis and our deductive analysis. The larger the cavern is the more certain we become of what is or isn’t true.

Thus, the “gap” remains in a not so serious manner but a useful one. The claim that science has no ground on which to maintain its cognitive superiority to any form of irrationality, however repugnant, holds true. In that, cognitive superiority does not come from the results or methods of science but from how well science can link empirical findings with deductive findings. Science does not have a monopoly on this method or rationality. Sometimes irrationally linking two inductive statements to the point of contradicting itself. Spending more time analyzing its own empirical findings without attempting to link them to deductive ones.

Just as quantum mechanics can tell us things about astronomy, so too can astronomy tell us things about quantum mechanics. Without bridging the gap between the two, we can still learn things about one or the other. To imply that the very large and the very small operate on different rules would be irrational and allude to the lack of the uniformity of nature.

Sources:

Lundy, M. (n.d.). Quadrivium (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Bloomsbury USA. - PAGE 14

Expansion of the Self

Bertrand Russell has been quoted saying, “All acquisition of knowledge is an enlargement of the self.” What Sir Russell means by this statement? The act of seeking after knowledge expands what the self is capable of doing. For this to make sense let’s consider what it means to know something, what it means to acquire knowledge and, finally, what it means for the self to enlarge and how that pertains to Socrates’ statement “Wisdom is knowing that you know nothing”.

In order to know that something is true there must be a balance between estimations and opinions. What I mean by estimations would be based upon what would be considered temporal laws of science or mathematics. When our estimations coincide with our opinions we could say that is knowledge. Acquiring this knowledge means moving through contradiction or admitting that our estimations or our opinions must be wrong. Russell understood that our opinions can have an effect on our findings such that our estimations fall subservient to opinions. He refers to this trap of subservience as prejudice. Prejudice occurs when an opinion is used as a starting point and is subsequently backed up by estimations supporting that opinion. This can be referred to as an ontological perspective.

An important word to pay attention to in Sir Russell's statement is “acquisition”. He isn’t saying that all knowledge enlarges the self. On the contrary, the majority of what we would call knowledge today would have no relevance elsewhere. That is to say, without context, most of this knowledge is useless.

The problem confronted by the seeker, when applying new knowledge, arises when new strong estimations are found but there is no context in which to relate the information. These estimations (even if the doubter would be hard pressed to counter-balance the validity of these estimations) fail to aid in the acquisition of knowledge as there is no clear grounds by which the opinion of the receiver can relate to the new estimations.

For example, “There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand making up all the beaches of the world. And yet, there are more atoms in a single grain of sand than stars in the universe.” Although this statement is relatively true and seems to enlarge the self, it provides no avenue in which would allow the receiver of this knowledge to apply it to their own lives.

So let’s say that knowledge alone isn’t enough for the enlargement of self to occur. But, instead, through the act of acquiring knowledge, the enlargement can take place. Enlargement of the self is dependent upon the knowledge with respect to context and its acquisition helps us form an opinion as to it’s use.

    The enlargement of self could  be correlated to intelligence. The more knowledge that is acquired, the more intelligent the self becomes. The expansion of the self could be described in terms of how intelligence can be applied to both the internal and external world. A possible way to measure this would be the rate by which current possible freedom of action correlates to future freedom of action. In other words, the more knowledge I acquire, the more possible futures are available to me. Without acquiring knowledge my actions are limited to common knowledge or tradition.

    With this in mind let us consider the example of Socrates. He is known for professing that he himself knows nothing. But I don’t think that this means he would have a small self. I think he fully understands that knowledge alone isn’t enough for the enlargement of the self to occur. His ultimate goal, knowing that he knows nothing, is an attempt to remove any prejudice he might possess for the value of the knowledge he seeks after. In his case he has shown by his actions that acquiring knowledge from a multitude of different sources is highly beneficial in the expansion of the self. This also means he is not afraid to be wrong and, as we have discussed earlier, this aids in formulating new estimations and opinions. Thus expanding his ideas of what is possible and therefore enlarges the self in the process.