Popper and Hume: Two Great Skeptics

  • Zuzana ParusnikováEmail author


Karl Popper explicitly discusses two problems in David Hume’s epistemology. He praises Hume for his critique of induction, specifically for his claim that inductive inferences are logically invalid. He rejects Hume’s psychological account of induction, specifically his theory of belief formation by repetition. Thus, Popper famously concludes that Hume buried the logical gems in the psychological mud and endorsed an irrationalist epistemology. The logical problem of induction gives Popper the impetus for spelling out his new, negative concept of reason, one which is incompatible with justification; however, Popper’s approach does not adequately deal with all the relevant themes related to Hume’s psychological problem of induction: our instinctive yearning for justification. Yet Popper and Hume have more in common than Popper explicitly acknowledges.


  1. Annas, Julia, and Jonathan Barnes. 2000. Sextus Empiricus: Outlines of Scepticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, Tom L., and Thomas Mappes. 1975. Is Hume Really a Sceptic About Induction? American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (12): 119–129.Google Scholar
  3. Cicero. 1913. De oficiis [44 BC]. Trans. W. Miller. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Garrett, Don. 1997. Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2004. A Small Tincture of Pyrrhonism: Skepticism and Naturalism in Hume’s Science of Man. In Pyrrhonian Skepticism, ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong, 68–99. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hacohen, Malachi H. 2000. Karl Popper. The Formative Years, 1902–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Holton, Gerald. 1973. Einstein, Mach, and the Search for Reality. In Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein, ed. Gerald Holton, 219–259. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Howard, Don A. 2004. Einstein’s Philosophy of Science. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2010 Edition.Google Scholar
  9. Huet, Pierre D. 1725 [1723]. A Philosophical Treatise Concerning the Weakness of Human Understanding. London: Gysbert Dommer.Google Scholar
  10. Hume, David. 1981 [1739]. A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2005a [1748]. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2005b [1751]. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Miller, David. 1994. Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  14. Millican, Peter. 2006. The Context, Aims and Structure of Hume’s First Enquiry. In Reading Hume on Human Understanding, 27–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Montaigne, Michel. 1993 [1580]. An Apology for Raymond Sebond. Trans. M.A. Screech. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Norton, John D. 1993. Mach’s Principle Before Einstein. In Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, ed. J. Barbour and H. Pfister, 9–57. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2009. How Hume and Mach Helped Einstein Find Special Relativity. In Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science, ed. M. Friedman, M. Domski, and M. Dickson, 359–386. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  18. Papineau, David A. 1995. Open Society, Closed Thinker. The Times Literary Supplement 23: 4–5.Google Scholar
  19. Parusniková, Zuzana. 2009. Ratio negativa – The Popperian Challenge. In Rethinking Popper, ed. Zuzana Parusniková and Robert S. Cohen, 31–47. Netherland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Popper, Karl R. 1965 [1934]. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1979 [1972]. Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1982 [1974]. Unended Quest. An Intellectual Autobiography. Glasgow: Fontana.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1985 [1963]. Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 1997 [1945]. The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  25. Read, Rupert, and Kenneth A. Richman, eds. 2007. The New Hume Debate. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Russell, Bertrand A.W. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2004 [1946]. History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Waismann, Friedrich. 1930. Logische Analyse der Wahrscheinlichkeitsbegriff. Erkenntnis 1: 228–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watkins, John. 1984. Science and Scepticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy, The Czech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations