Causality, Hume and the Scientific Method

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1holycatholic

Guest
Wouldn’t David Hume’s (unsuccessful) attempt to disprove the existence of God by denying causality in “Dialogues on Natural Religion” completely undermine the scientific method? I’m a bit perplexed by all of the books which are merely rehashed Hume touted as proof of the non-existence of God and the primacy of the scientific method. Especially since Hume’s Dialogues on Natural Religion completely fails to disprove any of the arguments for the existence of God.
 
It’s explained quite well on Wikipedia, have you seen the article?

Hume was not arguing that we have a concept of a Real necessary connexion, where “Real” means that our idea represents something in the world, external to human minds. Instead, our concept of causation is composed of two elements (corresponding to Hume’s two famous “definitions” of causation), the first of which is the regular succession given in perception, but the second of which, the necessary connexion, is actually a product of a functional change in the human mind which allows us to anticipate and predict future events based on past regularities. So the Quasi-Realist denies that the necessary connexion is a property existing in the world (hence he denies straightforward Realism), and instead sees it as representative of a change in our mental states and practical attitudes. However, this does not amount to a full-on Anti-Realism about Causation, because the Quasi-Realist is also a Projectivist, who holds that it is perfectly legitimate to “project” our predictions by making statements which express the belief in a necessary connexion. It is not that we talk “as-if” there were a necessary connexion, when really there is not: rather, our talk of there being a necessary connexion is a way of voicing a distinctive mental set, which allows us to explain and predict the behaviour of objects, and hopefully come to control them too. Thus when Hume says that “nothing is more usual than to apply to external bodies every internal sensation which they occasion”, he is not diagnosing an error in human thought, but merely giving a scientific explanation of how our concepts arise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
 
It’s explained quite well on Wikipedia, have you seen the article?

Hume was not arguing that we have a concept of a Real necessary connexion, where “Real” means that our idea represents something in the world, external to human minds. Instead, our concept of causation is composed of two elements (corresponding to Hume’s two famous “definitions” of causation), the first of which is the regular succession given in perception, but the second of which, the necessary connexion, is actually a product of a functional change in the human mind which allows us to anticipate and predict future events based on past regularities. So the Quasi-Realist denies that the necessary connexion is a property existing in the world (hence he denies straightforward Realism), and instead sees it as representative of a change in our mental states and practical attitudes. However, this does not amount to a full-on Anti-Realism about Causation, because the Quasi-Realist is also a Projectivist, who holds that it is perfectly legitimate to “project” our predictions by making statements which express the belief in a necessary connexion. It is not that we talk “as-if” there were a necessary connexion, when really there is not: rather, our talk of there being a necessary connexion is a way of voicing a distinctive mental set, which allows us to explain and predict the behaviour of objects, and hopefully come to control them too. Thus when Hume says that “nothing is more usual than to apply to external bodies every internal sensation which they occasion”, he is not diagnosing an error in human thought, but merely giving a scientific explanation of how our concepts arise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
That isn’t a satisfactory answer, or a very reliable source.
David Hume:
All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seemed conjoined, but never connected. And as we can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or force at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings or common life.
Take a knife cutting a piece of fruit - in this case cause and effect are inseparable and concurrent.
 
JMJ / MMM 080615 Sunday
Hello to All –
Those sharing ideas about David Hume should keep in mind that Hume never really doubted causality or the principle of causality. He considered such doubt absurd.

These are Hume’s words in a letter written in 1754 probably to John Stewart – “But allow me to tell you, that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a Cause: I only maintained, that our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration; but from another Souce … There are many difference kinds of Certainty; and some of them as satisfactory to the Mind, tho perhaps not so regular, as the demonstrative kind.” John Stewart was a professor of natural philosophy at Edenburgh. Stewart’s attack and Hume’s letter are to be found in N.K. Smith, The Philosophy of David Hume, pp. 411-413.

I surely am not a popular fan of David Hume … but I wouldn’t want David thought such a lousy “philosopher” as to have denied causality or the Principle of Causality.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com
 
JMJ / MMM 080615 Sunday
Hello to All –
Those sharing ideas about David Hume should keep in mind that Hume never really doubted causality or the principle of causality. He considered such doubt absurd.

These are Hume’s words in a letter written in 1754 probably to John Stewart – “But allow me to tell you, that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a Cause: I only maintained, that our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration; but from another Souce … There are many difference kinds of Certainty; and some of them as satisfactory to the Mind, tho perhaps not so regular, as the demonstrative kind.” John Stewart was a professor of natural philosophy at Edenburgh. Stewart’s attack and Hume’s letter are to be found in N.K. Smith, The Philosophy of David Hume, pp. 411-413.

I surely am not a popular fan of David Hume … but I wouldn’t want David thought such a lousy “philosopher” as to have denied causality or the Principle of Causality.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com
This was written years before Dialogues where he denies that there is any real causality that can be known.
 
JMJ / MMM 080621 Saturday
Hello 1holycatholic –
Perhaps you would give the exact location from the Diologues and perhaps a short quotation where Hume specifically denies Causality itself. This would be appreciated.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com
 
JMJ / MMM 080621 Saturday
Hello 1holycatholic –
Perhaps you would give the exact location from the Diologues and perhaps a short quotation where Hume specifically denies Causality itself. This would be appreciated.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com
I think I either phrased it improperly, or you are taking me too literally. Hume has to acknowledge causality as a logical construct, however he denies that the necessary connection can be known as anything but a mental fiction. IMHO this completely undermines causality.
David Hume:
[131]

Your precaution, says Philo, of seasoning your children’s minds early with piety, is certainly very reasonable; and no more than is requisite in this profane and irreligious age. But what I chiefly admire in your plan of education, is your method of drawing advantage from the very principles of philosophy and learning, which, by inspiring pride and self-sufficiency, have commonly, in all ages, been found so destructive to the principles of religion. The vulgar, indeed, we may remark, who are unacquainted with science and profound enquiry, observing the endless disputes of the learned, have commonly a thorough contempt for philosophy; and rivet themselves the faster, by that means, in the great points of theology which have been taught them. Those who enter a little into study and enquiry, finding many appearances of evidence in doctrines the newest and most extraordinary, think nothing too difficult for human reason; and, presumptuously breaking through all fences, profane the inmost sanctuaries of the temple. But Cleanthes will, I hope, agree with me, that, after we have abandoned ignorance, the surest remedy, there is still one expedient left to prevent this profane liberty. Let Demea’s principles be improved and cultivated: let us become thoroughly sensible of the weakness, blindness, and narrow limits of human reason: let us duly consider its uncertainty and endless contrarieties, even in subjects of common life and practice: let the errors and deceits of our very senses be set before us; the insuperable difficulties which attend first principles in all systems; the contradictions which adhere to the very ideas of matter, cause and effect, extension, space, time, motion; and in a word, quantity of all kinds, the object of the only science that can fairly pretend to any certainty or evidence. When these topics are displayed in their full light, as they are by some philosophers and almost all divines; who can retain such confidence in this frail faculty of reason as to pay any regard to its determinations in points so sublime, so abstruse, so remote from common life and experience? When the coherence of the parts of a stone, or even that composition of parts which renders it extended; when these familiar objects, I say, are so inexplicable, and contain circumstances so repugnant and contradictory; with what assurance can we decide concerning the origin of worlds, or trace their history from eternity to eternity?

Source
Here is a bit more regarding Hume and causality.
 
JMJ / MMM 080622 Sunday
To 1holycatholic –
Thank you. Your response was generous.
I see the gap between the logical necessity and the fact that causality can be established as real outside the mind … for Hume, that is.
There’s some essential metaphysics that Hume failed to see, some intuitive intellectual experiences that Hume was blind to.
Thank you. John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top