Wittgenstein Inductive Reasoning Summary

Peplau utilized both deductive and inductive reasoning in her theory development work (Reed & Shearer, 2011). The deductive reasoning methods used were that Peplau integrated ideas from a number of theories into her theory of interpersonal relations. Influenced by works of Sigmund Freud, particularly his interest in unconscious motivation as well as Harry S. Sullivan’s theory of interpersonal relations all contributed to her development of the theory of interpersonal processes in nursing, For example she refers to Sullivan’s concepts of anxiety, self-system and modes of experiencing. (Peterson & Bredow, 2017). She also incorporated into her theory some elements from developmental psychology and learning theory (Armstrong & Kelly, 1995) and some ideas of the humanistic psychologists, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May and Carl Rogers. (Peterson & Bredow, 2017). For example, Peplau’s systematic approach to establishment of nurse-patient relationship and therapeutic intervention are ideas that resonated with Martha Rogers' theoretical assumptions about human pattern and organization. (Armstrong & Kelly, 1995).

The mystical world has suddenly becomes more philosophical. Nowadays, people argue that it is impossible to prove existence of anything. Even more, some philosophers delivered great speeches and wrote books to prove that 1+1=3, and the misconception in mathematics. Bertrand Russell delivered a lecture named “Why I Am Not a Christian” in March 6, 1927. In this essay, he made many criticisms against Christianity and questioned the existence of God. He presented many ideas about the fallacy inside of Christianity. Bertrand Russell’s argumentation and logic in the first-cause argument are inconsistent because there can’t be infinite cause of one thing and God is a mystical figure, therefore his cause is unknowable, so Russell’s argument is uncertain.

Lewis. This paper will analyze the argument of the passage above by parsing it, examining formal and informal proof, while also discussing its fallacies.

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

Induction is a form of reasoning where the premises support the conclusion, but do not confirm that the conclusion is true. To justify induction, we are required to justify that we can infer that experiences we have never experienced will resemble those that we have experienced. Making inductive inferences is necessary for everyday life as well as in science. It is rational to rely on inductive arguments in everyday life for claims such as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” But inductive arguments require that nature is uniform. For example, tomorrow the laws of physics will continue to work the same as how they have in the past, so the world will continue spinning and the sun will rise. This perceived uniformity (the principle of uniformity of nature) allows claims like the one previously outlined to be easily understood. Although inductive arguments are useful, whether or not they can be justified is a topic of debate. In James Van Cleve’s “Reliability, Justification and the Problem of Induction,” he uses an inductive argument to attempt to justify induction. In his justification he claims that his method of argument is not circular. I argue that his reasoning is problematic because an inductive argument is not able to justify induction, mainly because inductive arguments presuppose the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature.

The purpose of this study is to explore the soundness of Baconian induction method and its contribution to the modern scientific method. The study seeks to answer the question, Does the Bacon’s idea of induction help shaped the modern scientific method.

The focus of this essay will be an argument by Peter Van Inwagen known as the “Consequence Argument.” The argument’s main goal is to refute compatibilism, or the idea that free will and determinism are reconcilable. Van Inwagen’s argument can be expressed as follows:

With this particular case, Gettier effectively challenges the relationship between the sufficient condition and the necessary conditions because Smith’s justified true beliefs are not jointly sufficient for him to know he is the man with 10 coins in his pocket who will get the job. In fact, even if Smith’s justified true belief turns out to be true; Jones actually gets the job, intuitively we are not convinced that his justified true beliefs is deemed as knowledge because in the case that he is correct, we intuitively regard his justified true belief as a lucky coincidence since he could have had a false justified true belief.

To have a belief in something is not to be mistaken as having knowledge of something, for these terms (belief and knowledge) are not to be seen as synonymous. This is further explored within the written philosophical work titled On Certainty by Ludwig Wittgenstien. This piece stands as a response to G.E. Moore’s written work “A Proof of The External World”. As way to justify that there is a world external of our sense, Moore uses his hand as a (sufficient) tool. This because he believes that what can be known through immediate sense experience is how one can acquire “commonsense” knowledge. To Moore, commonsense knowledge is knowledge that denies the possibility of doubt, which in turn lays down a foundation for all knowledge.

“My mind," he said, "rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for mental exaltation” (Sign of Four 6). Sherlock Holmes can not only solve the mysteries that are presented to him, but he can solve them with ease because of his reasoning skills. In particular, he mostly uses abductive reasoning, but sometimes he uses deductive and inductive reasoning. This also overlaps into mathematics, with proofs and inferences.

Bertrand Russell discussed certain problems he found with philosophy. Russell was concerned about how much did we really know. There is the stuff we know with our mind when we have a particular idea, and stuff we know through actually experiencing it which would justify it. But how do we know if it is real, or even there, for that matter? Russell says, “For if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of object, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people’s bodies, and therefore still less of other peoples minds, since we have no grounds for believing in their minds except such as are derived from observing their bodies” (Russell, 47). How can Farmer Brown be sure that the dairyman just didn’t have an idea

In the selection, ‘Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding’, David Hume poses a problem for knowledge about the world. This question is related to the problem of induction. David Hume was one of the first who decided to analyze this problem. He starts the selection by providing his form of dividing the human knowledge, and later discusses reasoning and its dependence on experience. Hume states that people believe that the future will resemble the past, but we have no evidence to support this belief. In this paper, I will clarify the forms of knowledge and reasoning and examine Hume’s problem of induction, which is a challenge to Justified True Belief account because we lack a justification for our

It is logical to say that things happen for a reason. A ball, kicked by a child in a playground, flies through the air and eventually comes down to the ground. The child has kicked the ball enough times to expect that once the ball reaches its highest point, it will fall. Through experience of kicking the ball and it coming back to the ground, the child will develop expectations of this action. This thought process seems sound, yet a question of certainty arises. Can we be certain that future events will be like past events? Can we be certain that the ball will fall once it has been kicked? This concept was one of David Hume’s most famous philosophical arguments: the Problem of Induction. This paper will outline Hume’s standpoint, as well give criticism for his argument.

The controversy within the field and study of Philosophy is continuously progressing. Many ideas are prepared, and challenged by other philosophers causing the original idea to be analyzed more thoroughly. One of the cases that challenge many philosophers is The Problem of Induction. David Hume introduced the world to The Problem of Induction. The Problem of Induction claims that, past experiences can lead to future experiences. In this essay, I will explain how the problem of induction does not lead to reasonable solutions instead it causes philosophers more problems.

The connections between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Soren Kierkegaard as philosophers are not at all immediately obvious. On the surface, Wittgenstein deals with matters concerning the incorrect use of philosophical language and Kierkegaard focuses almost exclusively on answering the question 'how to become a Christian'. But this account belies deeper structural similarities between these men's important works. Thus, this paper suggests that their methods, rather than exclusively content, contain a strong parallel on which a natural and hopefully fruitful examination of their work can be based.