Why the problem of induction is not limited to induction

Ever since Hume started to wonder if inductive arguments are ever justified, a common concern amongst epistemologists arose. How do we know something based on induction if we cannot philosophically justify the method as such? Can science, which is based on induction, give us any knowledge? How do we know that if I jump from the window I will fall? Various authors have tried to solve these questions, but the problems persist, some form of local scepticism seems to find its way. But what if the problem is not only to do with induction? What if the principle of criticizing the method applies to all forms of rational thinking? In the next few paragraphs I will try to give an answer to this question.
Firstly, the problem of induction in a nutshell is about how we justify arguments that involve taking a leap from the premises to the conclusions, arguments that inform us about the future, arguments that generalize that from the observed cases we can know the unobserved cases: inductive arguments. These typo of argumentation assumes the uniformity principle, which states that the world will continue to be as it is now in the future. We constantly use these inductive arguments on a daily basis, so what is wrong with them? Hume claims that the uniformity principle is not self-justificatory. We can picture a world in which the future has nothing in common with the past. So how de we justify it? We cannot justify induction "a priori" since there is no way of jumping directly from premises to conclusions in a deductively valid way and "a priori" arguments do not say anything about future states. We cannot justify it "a posteriori" since that would make us state that the uniformity is justified because up until now it has worked, that of course would be a circular argument. Since we do not want to beg the question, could we use abduction? The answer is no, because it is hard to define which is the best explanation and abduction does involve some kind of leap from premises to conclusion, so it seems that the uniformity principle must remain unjustified, which is far from being ideal. I am not going to go through the answers philosophers have give to the problem, since that is not the purpose of this short article. My question is: does this sceptical method of questioning induction apply to other methods? The answer seems to me to be yes.
Let's go with abduction, how do we justify it? We cannot do so using induction due to the problem I have just explained, we cannot use abduction since that would make the argument circular and we cannot use deduction either because there is no deductive way of doing so, all of our deductive attempts will fail, we can always question the premises and providing an argument that moves directly from premises to conclusion (deduction) to justify a method that does not do so (abduction or induction) does not seem to make much sense to me. What about deduction? We have got the same problem! You cannot justify it by using deduction because that would be circular, you cannot employ induction due to the problem of induction and you cannot use abduction either form the same reasons. The problem of induction can thus be extrapolated to our three forms of reasoning. It seems that philosophy is unable to justify itself.

The death of modern democracy

I know the title of this article sounds nihilistic, amoral, anti-liberal and counter-intuitive, but before you think I'm the worst human being in the planet, let me explain what I mean by this.
As a philosophy/literature/French student, I have always believed in the freedom of expression (and I still do), the liberal ideals (yes! The degree I am studying is in fact called "liberal arts") and people's right to show their opinions, no matter how ridiculous they are. I have always believed in the intrinsic importance of argumentation to convince the masses, but after fantastic ideas such as Brexit, Donald Trump and Colombia's rejection of the peace treaty, I have come to realize that there is a force that drives the masses a lot better than any rational way to speak to them: feelings. President-elect Trump, the victory of Brexit and Colombia's choice to opt for war rather than peace are examples of the failure of rationality. People have spoken and out of fear, anger and hypocrisy have chosen horrible things, that is why I can't help wondering if this is the end of modern democracy or rather, if it should be the end of it. Therefore I ask myself, what is the death of democracy? In the following article I will analyse two of the main principles that govern our conception of democracy and I will try to explain why despite being our best socio-political system so far, democracy is bound to failure and if that is the case what to do once it has collapsed.
Utilitarianism expressed that humans are in a constant conflict that involves the acceptance of pleasure and the rejection of pain. A good system is that which creates the best possible outcome, the best balance of pleasure over pain, in other words, "the greatest happiness for the greatest number". John Stuart Mill's liberal ideals lead him to speak about "the dictatorship of the majority", which is a concept that is perfectly exemplified in the outcome of the Colombia peace treaty vote (50.2 vs 49.7), and that in a good educational system students should be faced with every kind of argument before forming their own opinion on a particular subject. This is not so simple though, Mill argues that pupils should be explained these arguments by those who are totally convinced of their validity, so for a student to really know a particular topic, let's say atheism, I should arrange a meeting with Richard Dawkins and, worse of all, in order to investigate the origins of terrorism I should listen to a lecture by a convinced terrorist and so on.
We can see straight away the relationship between classical utilitarianism and democracy. They both call for freedom of speech and "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" motto. Nevertheless, these two premises are extremely problematic. Let's first take an example that will show the precarious state of the argument for freedom of speech: Should we give a tyrannical dictator who will suppress freedom of speech the right to propagate his ideas? If the answer is "yes" and he is successful in convincing the masses (which would be fairly plausible since masses are easily manipulable, if you're not sure, I encourage you to take a look at Lenin's rise to power), that's it, freedom of speech is dead. On the contrary, if we don't let him express himself, we are also suppressing freedom of speech and killing it. It seems that the liberal principle of freedom of speech can be used against us. There is a third, more desirable, scenario however, that in which the tyrant does express himself but fails to convince the masses. In this case, freedom of speech has proved to survive, but its survival has had side-effects. Notice that throughout this article I have been using the word "convincing" when I referred to swaying the masses. That is the third way in which freedom of speech dies. Very few people agree truly with the ideas of a particular political party, we are convinced by them, we are manipulated to vote for X, either by rational argumentation or by the feelings the politicians transmit. So only political parties are entirely free, in the widest definition of the word: free to express themselves, free to make us vote for them... The rest of us are like sheep. We think we are being listened to and that our ideas are being discussed but we are constantly being influenced by the others and we are being seen as 'sources of votes', as material resources, not as people with real ideas that must be debated. This essay, like any other piece of writing, has a similar objective: I want you to agree with me, no matter how open and tolerant I want to be, the moment I present my argument to you, I will be exercising some kind of control over you, it's just the way argumentation works. I am free to write whatever I want, but the moment you read these words your opinion will be affected by mine whether you agree or disagree with my thesis. If you disagree, your opinion will try to prove I am wrong, thus influencing you and if you agree, you might do so out of the eloquence of this text or its sound arguments or whatever reason, but if I succeed I would have changed some of your preconceptions and therefore we can conclude that you are not entirely free to form your own opinions. We are what we read and hear.  No matter how much we try to be sincere to our audience, the minute we express ourselves we will influence other people and we are constantly affected by other people's right to express themselves, hence restricting our individual opinion. So even in the most desirable if the three scenarios of freedom of speech, we see that only a few are really free, while the rest live deceived. That's the paradox of democracy in terms of freedom of speech.
Let's now examine the argument on "the greatest happiness for the greatest number". Mill would say that that is good. Whatever produces more happiness, whatever people fancy, is the good we should look for. However, it is apparent that sometimes people desire bad things, such as the three examples I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, so not always what people wish is equated with their good. It is a mistake to believe what people want is what will make them happy in the long run. Right now, Dan Brown might be a lot more popular than Shakespeare, but who is the better writer? This utilitarian premise leads to absurd conclusions. In addition, the mere concept of happiness is very subjective and, although it is important to create a good social system, it should not be our only criteria. What is more, if we are constantly being influenced by others, how do we know that X is what we truly want? Either way, democratic ideals seem to lead to their own self-destruction. In fact the only reason why Colombia has been able to negotiate with FARC now is because the government did not take the results too seriously.
What we should look for is a structure that would apply a different utilitarian, less objectionable approach named "welfare utilitarianism", which attempts to search for the good and the preferences of the citizens, rather than their desires. I am not saying this is the best possible solution to the problem and it may not produce the greatest happiness to the greatest number of the readers of this blog, but it might be an idea to look at.
To conclude, sadly democracy seems to be doomed to death. It is the best system we have tried so far and it seems to respect the integrity of the individual but it does have inconsistencies. I am not suggesting we should abandon it radically, we should stand for common sense: freedom of speech is a good idea, but it does have problems that should be understood. I do think democracy has very useful ideals and it is a system which tries to aim to the respect of the individual. The key problem is that it offers no guarantee. What I am trying to do is to show you that things could be otherwise if we apply another inclusive system which guarantees the welfare of the people whilst keeping the best, most integrative principles of democracy. We need a substitute, something that will preserve the successes of democracy and correct its faults.