Final answer:
David Hume critiques induction by stating that past experiences do not necessarily predict future events, emphasizing empiricism and skepticism. He claims that our causal reasoning is habit-based and lacks factual justification, and he makes the key distinction that moral obligations cannot be deduced from observable facts.
Step-by-step explanation:
David Hume's perspective on the problem of induction challenges the reliability of inferring future events based on past experiences. In works like A Treatise on Human Nature and An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume posits that our past experiences do not guarantee future occurrences. This skepticism is rooted in empiricism, the idea that all knowledge comes through the senses. However, Hume contends that while sense impressions lead to perceptions, they do not confirm an external reality or the continuity of nature's laws.
Hume argues that the causal reasoning we apply to predict future events from past experiences lacks rational justification because it is based on habit and assumption, not on certainty. One of Hume's famous contributions is the assertion that you cannot derive 'ought' from 'is'—suggesting that morality and sentiment cannot be inferred from factual occurrences.
As a thinker who pushed British empiricism to its limits, Hume profoundly influenced later philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, who cited Hume as an inspiration for his critical philosophy.