Home > Terms > English, UK (UE) > Hume’s argument against causation

Hume’s argument against causation

How can know that (sensory event) A is the cause of some (sensory event) B? Since A and B are distinguishable, we do not think of one being the cause of the other until, through experience, we find constant conjunction between A and B (coupled with "contiguity" (closeness) of A and B, and the priority of A to B). This constant conjunction gives rise to a superstition that there is a necessary connexion between A and B but this notion is just superstition, in that we might have had a long run of coincidences. Since A and B are separable, and we can conceive them existing apart, there is no purely rational basis for deriving B from A; and appeal to some general principle derived from experience (i.e., the future will be like the past) is not helpful because any such principle suffers from the same problem as "A causes B" -- because this too can be coincidental.

This is auto-generated content. You can help to improve it.
0
Collect to Blossary

Member comments

You have to log in to post to discussions.

Terms in the News

Featured Terms

Harry8L
  • 0

    Terms

  • 0

    Blossaries

  • 1

    Followers

Industry/Domain: Astronomy Category: General astronomy

Thirty metre Telescope (TMT)

The Thirty metre Telescope will be the world's largest when it's finished in 2018, at the summit of Mauna Kea volcano in Hawaii. The telescope, known ...

Contributor

Featured blossaries

Apples

Category: Food   1 20 Terms

Names of God

Category: Religion   1 10 Terms