Question

Hello Rabbi,
I read in your book The Science of Freedom that Hume argues that the principle of causality cannot be learned from any observation, and that it is something intuitive to us but not derived from observation.
A friend of mine asked me: after all, we see that when someone kicks a ball, the ball moves. From this we learned that a force is applied to objects, causing them to move, and we built formulas that explain many phenomena throughout the physical world. Doesn't learning from a particular event and creating a rule that holds in all the cases I encounter confirm that there is an explanation here that is correct and not speculative? In other words, a theory that explains many situations seemingly confirms its correctness. And if it is correct, then seemingly it points back to the fact that kicking the ball really is the cause of its movement. Why isn't that correct?