@Nameless 23232,
Nameless_23232;118623 wrote:I'm writing an essay on Hume's causation and trying to discover a topic (I'm writing at Masters level so I need some sort of originality or something interesting). What I'm struggling to reconcile is the following, Hume gives this example in The Enquiry, Sect. IV, P. II:
"When a child has felt the sensation of pain from touching the flame of a candle, he will be careful not to put his hand near any candle; but will expect a similar effect from a cause which is similar in its sensible qualities and appearance. "
This is an example of singular causal inference, is it not, and yet Hume reduces causation to mere constant conjunction with a necessary connection.
How can he reconcile the two?
Any thoughts would be appreciated, I've spent all day trying to work it out.
---------- Post added 01-08-2010 at 10:38 PM ----------
I should make clear that I'm not saying Hume implies in the given quote that the the causal inference has been drawn by means of constant conjunction leading to the feeling/idea of a necessary connexion between the two objects/events, what I meant is this is his definition of causation in general and how can this be consistent with the given quote.
Yes! Hume does contradict himself. There are certainly examples that one can find where Hume proposes natural laws, which implies that he believes that there are laws of nature that can be known. Not just that the past history has a pattern that seems to follow a law, but that there is a law! If one knows the law of nature that controls how things change, then they also know the cause.
It is not even necessary to look at specific examples similar to the candle example you mention above. By saying what he says, that one cannot know laws, Hume is directly contradicting himself because he is proposing "one cannot know laws" as a law! And to think that one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper, thought that Hume's argument was sound.
What should be concluded from this is that we do have the ability to know laws of nature and to know what causes things to happen, albeit indirectly and often with much difficulty.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace