On David Hume’s question.
Assuming I am an empiricist and understand David Hume’s argument against causality. I still don’t understand the difference between senses and the law of causality. That is, even assuming I can see causality, the law will not be valid in the future, because perhaps the law of causality will change. I would appreciate a response, thanks in advance.
The question is whether you see a causal connection between event A and event B, so it is really an observation of a specific event. But I am also talking about seeing the causal relationship or the principle of causality itself. Just as I ‘see’ (with my mind’s eye) that there is a law of gravity that objects with mass attract each other, so I ‘see’ with my mind’s eye the general principle of causality. Such seeing is observing ideas and not specific events. Through the events that I see, I notice the existence of a general law. Therefore, there is no reason to see that the law is general and will probably apply in the future (at least until I ‘see’ that it has changed).
This can perhaps be likened to ‘seeing’ a logical law. When I ‘see’ (with my mind’s eye. That is, understand) 2+3=5, it is clear to me that this is an eternal law and not a characteristic of one specific event or another.
But induction (the assumption that the laws will not change) is not seen and it is not clear that something is eternal.
I explained this. When you see an event, the problem of induction arises. When you ‘see’ the general law, it does not arise. I gave as an example ‘seeing’ the laws of logic or arithmetic.
There is something contradictory about the idea that one can see information about the future in the present. One also has to “see” that there is no higher mechanism that can cancel the current law. And that in Kepler’s meticulous numerical records, Newton could “see” his laws? I assume that he did not deal with such a question at all, but first of all tried to find laws that would stitch together Kepler’s data and laws, and it turned out that he was right (as you have often stated on this surprising matter) and we also assume that it will continue to be right (and we are right in this too). But the induction hypothesis is indeed similar to the laws of logic in that it does not involve cognition, but only thinking.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
