>>13394361>Explain how the chicken benefits from discounting induction.You don't discount it, but you are aware that it's not supported by anything except a circular argument.
You cannot produce an argument that convinces you of the truth of an inductive statement. You will reach a dead end, a wall. You can just use it and sort of hope it works. So, if we lived as a chicken, we might take the inductive statement:
>my farmer takes care of me, feeds me every day and I will probably be okay since this will likely happen every dayand try to step back from it and see if you can make any deductive, abductive, etc. connections, such that you ensure a safer future, and minimize the chances of getting your head chopped.
And then, I guess, the general lesson is that you become more aware of how our minds pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and the gap between the ground and our boots is the territory that you reach when you deal with issues such as Hume's problem of induction.
I guess that some people do confuse inductive/abductive statements with deductive statements (someone ITT mentioned certainty), but that's a different issue. I guess there is this issue of using certainty/surety as a crutch, since living life being hyper aware of possibly being terribly wrong about anything is not a sane way to live. Some people are aware that this is just a temporary crutch. Others aren't aware of it, and are the sort of person that thinks science is "objective".
