1. Hume says we develop our notion of causation from observing “constant conjunctions”. If this is meant to imply that more than one instance is required before we can conclude that we have observed or experienced an instance of cause and effect then Hume is surely wrong. A child who burns herself on the iron does not need to do this a second time before she works out what has caused the pain.
    However, elsewhere Hume allows that once we have developed the general notion of cause and effect we can then apply this to novel situations. Unfortunately, this leads to further problems for if this general notion of cause and effect can be developed very early on in childhood and then applied to novel situations it seems that it will be very difficult to distinguish this acquired notion from some kind of innate idea.


  2. If ‘constant conjunctions’ means that event ‘a’ always leads to event ‘b’ without exception then that is also a problem for experience tells us that this doesn’t always happen. The stone doesn’t always break the window. Hume allows for this by talking about intervening causes.
    Perhaps Hume’s position is not entirely correct and he needs a slightly more sophisticated explanation of human psychology. A single powerful conjunction (being burnt with the iron) may suffice but a less powerful but repeated conjunction may suffice even if there are occasional exceptions.


  3. Hume also fails to account for why some constant conjunctions lead us to believe we are witnessing cause and effect whereas others do not. The flashing amber traffic light is always followed by the green light but it is unlikely that anyone assumes that the former causes the latter.
    Hume does say “The causal chain from the evidence to the ‘matter of fact’ conclusion may be short or long. And it may be that the causal connection between them isn’t direct but collateral.” Perhaps this would be an instance of two events being caused by something prior to both, i.e. the electronics that control the lights. However, it does highlight the fact that Hume has not provided us with a way of deciding when event ‘a’ causes event ‘b’ from when events ‘a’ and ‘b’ are both caused by some previous event.


  4. Hume allows that science may “make the principles that govern natural phenomena simpler, bringing many particular effects together under a few general causes…” but, perhaps understandably, fails to appreciate how far this would go. Einstein was able to accurately predict the effect of gravity on light without ever seeing anything similar. This appears to be a clear counter-example to Hume’s claim that knowledge about causes “is never acquired through a priori reasoning.”
    However, this would not undermine a weaker claim that in most normal instances we rely on experience and his examples, e.g. of polished marble, are still quite convincing. Nor does it undermine his later claim that “Every part of applied mathematics works on the assumption that nature operates according to certain established laws”. The complex mathematics of Einstein were ultimately based on previous measurements of how the world functions and were trying to address anomalies in the existing theories.


  5. Kant argued that Hume's idea of empirical experience was oversimplified. He said 'experience' depended on the mind bringing certain concepts to bear on the raw sensation. One of these concepts independent of experience is cause and effect. Therefore, according to Kant you cannot derive the concept of cause from experience because it was already presupposed by experience.
    Kant’s claim makes even more sense in the light of evolutionary theory. There are good reasons to suppose that a notion of cause and effect would give a survival advantage. As a result of this, an inbuilt tendency to draw cause and effect conclusions may be part of our make-up because of our evolutionary heritage. True this still depends upon in some way on our ancestor’s experience but this seems far removed from what Hume was originally claiming.
Last modified: Friday, 27 August 2021, 2:08 PM