In this article, I will briefly define what induction is and attempt to explain David Hume's problem of induction by looking at the three problems of induction, which are the problem of uniformity of nature, the problem of cause and effect reasoning, and the problem of dependence on past experience. Induction as proposed by Bacon is defined as "a picture of scientific reasoning and practice according to which scientists arrive at explanatory theories by making observations and formulating generalizations." based on their specific observations” (Scott & Mungwini, 2015: 42). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayInduction is considered a specific form of reasoning that takes us beyond the limits of existing evidence to draw conclusions about the unknown. The premises of an inductive argument indicate some degree of support for the conclusion, but necessarily imply the conclusion. The conclusion of an inductive argument is considered a hypothesis because the conclusion is said to be followed with probability. When we argue inductively, we infer something beyond the content of the premises; This is called inductive jumping. Inductive reasoning moves from specific cases and observations to underlying principles and more general hypotheses that explain them, for example Einstein's theory of relativity. Inductive reasoning is more open-ended and more explanatory than deductive reasoning. However, the problem of induction posed by David Hume calls into question an error on which all science as it was discussed in the 18th century is based. The question is why do past experiences give us any reason to think that future experiences will be a particular way, like the laws of nature seem more or less constant and does induction lead to the knowledge and what is the justification? Let us consider the problem of the uniformity of nature. According to David Hume, induction is an unjustified form of reasoning for the following reason: inductions are believed to be good because nature is uniform in some deep respect. For example, one can infer that all ravens are black from a small sample of black ravens, because there is a regularity of blackness among ravens, which constitutes a particular uniformity in nature. However, why assume that there is a regularity of darkness among crows? What justifies this hypothesis? Hume states that we know that nature is uniform, either deductively or inductively. However, one certainly cannot deduce this hypothesis and an attempt to induce this hypothesis only makes the justification for induction circular. So, induction is an unwarranted form of reasoning and, as such, is what makes induction a problem. Considering the problem of cause and effect, Hume advances the idea that we do not know the relationships between distinct elements of fact by reason alone. , as such, “all reasoning about matters of fact appears to be grounded in cause and effect” (Allhoff, Kelly & McGrew, 2009: 220). He asserts that "...as a general proposition, which admits without exception, the knowledge of this relation is by no means obtained by a priori reasoning, but arises entirely from experience, when we find that particular objects are constantly joined to each other. Let an object be presented to a man endowed with reason and natural abilities always as.