Larry D. answered • 11/16/22
Here to better your grades. Your "A" is my main aim.
Hume agrees that the reasoning behind induction may be logical, but he does not agree that it can be justified after the fact because it only sometimes leads to the truth. A posteriori, according to Hume, means that concepts are based on empirical evidence. In other words, it is plausible on the surface but not true at all, and the only way to know for sure is to go check it out for yourself. Because of this, Hume concludes that induction alone is insufficient for justified a-posteriori understanding. Hume thought that induction was the process of drawing connections between hypotheses to get a priori knowledge. A priori, not all ideas must be tested in the real world to be accepted as true. The familiar shape of the triangle illustrates this concept. Since you now know that every triangle has three sides, you may safely make that assumption about any additional triangles you see. You have priori knowledge since you are making inferences based on what you believe to be possible and rational, even when you have no direct experience with the topic.
Like induction, a priori knowledge may be attained through reflective thought. However, posteriori knowledge can only be gained through direct experience since, even if you find a notion plausible, you cannot force it to be true. It is plausible that I had a cat as a pet, but you would not know that until you came to my home to see it for yourself. Since not every possible situation is true, Hume finds that induction cannot be validated as a posteriori.
A priori justification of induction is impossible because an observation is either true or false; there are no other states. However, induction may be justified as leading to a more significant kind of knowledge than a posteriori can provide. We cannot see the future or a lot of other truths in the universe, so induction is a key way to conclude. For instance, many people trust weather forecasters because they believe their predictions, based on logic and science, usually come true or are extremely near the mark. In light of this, certain facts can only be found by induction and not through posteriori knowledge.
