Inductive skepticism, as I understand it, is Hume’s position that observing the sun rise today does not increase the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow.
This would be true only on the assumption that there is a 100% chance that whether or not the sun rises is completely random. If there is at least a one in a billion chance that the sun rises according to rule, then observing the sun rise once will increase the probability that it will rise next time.
How does a position merit the title “skeptical” when it maintains an infinite certainty of something completely contrary to experience, namely that everything is totally random?
Inductive skepticism, as I understand it, is Hume’s position that observing the sun rise today does not increase the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow.
This would be true only on the assumption that there is a 100% chance that whether or not the sun rises is completely random. If there is at least a one in a billion chance that the sun rises according to rule, then observing the sun rise once will increase the probability that it will rise next time.
How does a position merit the title “skeptical” when it maintains an infinite certainty of something completely contrary to experience, namely that everything is totally random?