Questions concerning Hume’s argument for the unknowability of ultimate causes


What are the arguments given by Hume to deny the necessary connection between cause and effect?

Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty.

What is the problem for Hume with observing the cause and effect relationships necessary for our understanding of the natural world?

Hume is skeptical about his own explanation of why we cannot rationally make necessary connections between two events. He stops short of saying that it is impossible to predict future events based on past experience and explains only that we lack any solid reason to believe this is the case.

What is necessary connection Hume?

According to David Hume our idea of a necessary connection between what we call cause and effect is produced when repeated observation of the conjunction of two events determines the mind to consider one upon the appearance of the other.

See also  Number of causes in Porphyry

What is Hume’s argument for the conclusion that causes and effects are discoverable not by reason but by experience?

Hume also explains that causes and effects may be discoverable by experience, but that they may not be discoverable by reason alone. Every effect is distinct from its cause, and every cause is distinct from its effect. Therefore, an effect cannot be discovered in a causal object or event merely by a priori reasoning.

What are the problems with Hume’s theory of causation?

Hume’s own major problem when it comes to causation is that of understanding the idea of ‘necessary connection’ – a crucial component of the idea of causation, he thinks, but one whose impression- source he needs to spend a large part of Book I of the Treatise attempting to locate.

How certain does Hume believe we can be about matters of fact?

Hume suggests that we know matters of fact about unobserved things through a process of cause and effect.

Why does Hume doubt we could ever have reason to believe in miracles?

Nevertheless, Hume tells us that no testimony can be adequate to establish the occurrence of a miracle. The problem that arises is not so much with the reliability of the witnesses as with the nature of what is being reported. A miracle is, according to Hume, a violation of natural law.