Philosophy of Knowledge Essay

David Humes The Origin of Our Ideas and Skepticism closely Causal Reasoning states his beliefs closely knowledge and his idea that we can exactly hold relative consequence of truth. Skeptics concur that there is non enough testify to predict the succeeding(a) or prove truth. In An Argument Against Skepticism, John Hospers argues that we can have absolute certainty beca custom there is enough evidence from the past and from our own experiences to prove an argument to be true. Although both Hume and Hospers make strong arguments, Hospers philosophical beliefs on different levels of knowledge and evidence atomic number 18 more win over than Humes concepts on knowledge and truth.Humes argument is based on the idea that we can only be certain of analytical truths, such as mathematics synthetic truths, or matters of fact argon only and can only be seeming, not truth. He believes that induction cannot be rationally conscionableified because the premises support yet do not gua rantee the remainder to the argument. Hume states that through experience, people assume that the future exit represent the past, and that similar things exit be coupled with similar qualities.Skeptics, analogous Hume, believe it is not an absolute truth that the sun will train every day it is merely supposed that history will bear itself. If there is any suspicion that character will change, experience becomes nugatory in predicting the future. Hume questions why we should accept the uniformity of nature, and anyone who argues this point is said to be begging the question. He comes to the conclusion that there is no real evidence to prove that inductive arguments are true or false, and accepting them is just routine but cant be justified.Hospers believes that because there are different amounts of evidence needed to find certain truths, there are different levels of knowledge. In daily deportment, we use the weak sense of know, and consequently we do not need absolute proo f. Why should people be so skeptical of propositions that are not relevant to common life? Hospers also poses an argument to Humes idea that synthetic truths are apparent and can never be actual truths. Hospers believes that an argument that has a probable conclusion can become a certainty, or truth, if evidence permits it. He argues that these matters of fact are probable until time and evidence make them certainties.Because we use the weak sense of know in our everyday lives, why wouldnt we accept the uniformity of nature, and the idea that the past outlines the future? The sun will rise everyday in my lifetime, because it always has, and theres no logical reason that it would cease to do so. If, as far as we know, natures past has always shown a vision of natures future, there is no reason to be skeptical about it.Humes point that induction cannot be justified makes sense but is arguable. If the premises support but do not guarantee the conclusion to the argument, it can still be easily justified with little evidence. Hospers date on the amount of evidence needed to prove that something will materialize in the future, is much more reasonable and realistic in everyday life.