Most individuals tend to base their understanding of the world solely on what they know; however they acquire this knowledge mostly through experience which can be deemed as problematic by different philosophers. The debate regarding knowledge through experience tends to revolve around philosophers who view experience as a limiting form of knowledge, in contrast to other philosophers who view experience as a stepping stone to acquiring the accuracy and credibility of a particular idea. David Hume and Charles Peirce are two philosophers whose ideas of reasoning fall within this debate. David Hume is a philosopher who believes that individuals naturally reason inductively; which is, using experiences to interpret and predict things. While Charles Peirce is a philosopher who believes that through abductive reasoning, individuals have a better chance of determining if a notion is true or false. Although both inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning stems from the same idea of reasoning through experience, the conclusion from both philosophers are at opposite ends. Where Hume finds inductive reasoning problematic, Peirce presents abduction as a solution. Therefore, this essay will compare the arguments of both philosophers to determine whose perspective is more persuasive and to find out what roles these arguments play in scientific knowledge.
Induction is the act of formulating a general conclusion based on experience. In order words, the more we perceive one particular