There’s no way to lose.

Alysa Liu

Good morning, it’s UniScoops! We’re like the "Skip Intro" button of academia: we get you straight to the good stuff.

Here’s a taste of what we’re serving today:

  • How Do We Know the Sun Will RISE Tomorrow? 🌞

  • PLUS: Maths and Fantasy Football, Economics of Haribo, and Periodic Table of Comic Books 🦸

PHILOSOPHY

How Do We Know the Sun Will RISE Tomorrow? 🌞

Me as soon as I see a tiny glimmer of sun #BringOnSpring

Ever wondered why we trust the sun will rise tomorrow? It seems like a sure thing, right? But according to 18th-century philosopher David Hume, that certainty might be a bit shaky. How in the world (or the sun) will he manage to pull this argument off?!

💡 Things to consider

  • Types of reasoning: To understand Hume’s argument, it’s important to understand the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning proceeds from a set of general premises to a specific conclusion that is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true. It follows a logical structure where the conclusion necessarily follows from the starting assumptions. Here’s a famous example: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

    David Hume

  • Hume’s Argument: Hume isn’t really butting heads with deductive reasoning. Instead, he’s got a gripe with inductive reasoning (Hume’s argument is often referred to as the ‘Problem of Induction’!) An inductive inference takes as input beliefs about previous observations/events, and outputs a belief about unobserved objects/events. For example, we see the sun rise every day, so we conclude it will rise tomorrow. However, Hume argues that this logic isn’t foolproof. Just because something has always happened a certain way doesn't guarantee it always will. Maybe tomorrow, the laws of physics decide to take a permanent vacation tomorrow, and the sun won’t actually rise!

The Sun on a random Wednesday

  • WTH are we meant to do then?!: Does this mean we can’t believe anything to be true now? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Firstly, we could actually try to defend inductive reasoning. Can past experiences, even if not logically conclusive, provide a strong basis for belief? If so/if not, what does this say about the scientific method (scientists use evidence and experimentation to build reliable knowledge despite the limitations Hume highlights? Are there any other ways to defend inductive reasoning?

🔎 Find out more

🍒 The cherry on top

🗳️ Poll

How was today's email?

We'd love to hear your feedback!

Login or Subscribe to participate

That’s it for this week! We’d like to thank this week’s writers: Gabriel Pang.

💚 Like UniScoops?

Forward this edition to someone who’d love to read it for extra kudos!

📢 Want to tell us something?

Reply to this email to tell us what you think about UniScoops, or to give us any suggestions on what you’d like to see.

🧐 New to UniScoops?

Get your weekly fix of academia with our fun, thought-provoking newsletter. No jargon, no fluff, just the good stuff. Subscribe today.

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Keep Reading