Hume’s Causality: Empiricism and the Limits of Knowledge
A Treatise of Human Nature
Philosopher David Hume, a contemporary of Newton and Adam Smith, authored A Treatise of Human Nature, later summarized in the Compendium. He proposed a new ‘science of man,’ aiming to explain human understanding through experience, particularly focusing on causality.
Critique of Causality
Hume’s critique of causality is central to his philosophy. As an empiricist, he believed complex ideas arise from simpler ones, tracing these back to sensory impressions. He argued that the idea of cause lacks a scientific basis, instead stemming from habit and belief.
A Billiards Example
Imagine a billiards ball striking another stationary ball, causing the latter to move. Hume argued that without prior experience of such an event, we couldn’t predict the second ball’s movement. The concept of cause arises only after repeated similar experiences, leading us to associate the impact with the subsequent motion. This mental process of association is inference.
Experience, Habit, and Belief
Hume asserted that experience informs us of three things: temporal proximity, the cause’s priority, and constant conjunction. These factors lead us to believe in a necessary connection between cause and effect. We anticipate events based on the assumption that the future will mirror the past. As creatures of habit, our minds seek regularities and permanence. However, Hume argued that true knowledge of future events is impossible.
The Limits of Knowledge
While acknowledging the human tendency to assume future consistency for the sake of sanity, Hume maintained that it’s more reasonable to wait and see. Past experiences, however numerous, cannot guarantee future events will unfold similarly. The sun rises in the east, but what if it doesn’t tomorrow? We expect it to, but we might be surprised. Hume’s skepticism highlights the limits of our knowledge and the role of habit in shaping our understanding of the world.