The Dispute between Critical Rationalism and Reliabilism about the Invalidity of Induction

Abstract

Based on analysis of the issue of how we learn from experience (if not by using induction), the study presents a problem of induction as formulated by Hume, thus showing its roots in unjustifiability of the principle of uniformity of nature. Popper's solution to the problem, consisting of the complete rejection of inductive reasoning, is exposed. Popper's solution is then subjected to comparison with David Papineau's reliabilism - a notion that knowledge is a true belief generated by a reliable method. The main objective of this study is to reopen a debate over the topic of invalidity of induction. A secondary objective is to illustrate the possible intersection between critical rationalism with its emphasis on delegitimisation of knowledge and reliabilist criteria of certainty.