🟡| K&D - Hume Section 4 Analysis

Question 1

Strengths

Answer 1

• Usage of Examples
• Argument for Induction

Question 2

Weaknesses

Answer 2

• Hume’s Fork
• Kant’s Critique (Synthetic, A Priori Truths)
• Karl Popper’s Critique (Argument for Induction)
• Usage of Habit & Custom

Question 3

Strengths:

Usage of Examples

3

Answer 3

• Gave examples for causation being based on interference of experience, agreeing causation is not a priori and where people would find the claim difficult to accept
• Demonstrates Hume being thorough - using realisitc examples to back up his arguments to make his thinking clearer to the reader
• Also shows acknowledgement of counter-arguments in his theory

Question 4

Strengths:

Argument for Induction

2

Answer 4

• Makes it clear that there is a gap in our reasoning to justify cause & effect
• Many philosophers have attempted to, but none have succeeded in refuting Hume’s claims on induction which shows how he presented a strong, truthful argument

Question 5

Weaknesses:

Hume’s Fork

2

Answer 5

• Claims that any knowledge that doesn’t fall into one of the two distinctions should be disregarded
• However, Hume’s fork itself doesn’t fit within either of the categories
• We can’t ue our logic to work out its truth, and we can’t use our experience of the world to find its truth
• Shows we shouldn’t be casting aside knowledge which can’t neatly fit into one category

Question 6

Weaknesses:

Kant’s Critique (Synthetic, A Priori Truths)

3

Answer 6

• Kant argued we can have synthetic, a priori truths - knowledge not neatly fitting into one category
• Example: scientists regularly use their knowledge from their experience of the world alongside their reasoning to predict future events, like knowing when a solar eclipse will happen without experiencing it - not a necessary, analytic truth that is known intuitively or via demonstration
• Kant thought that cause & effect was another example of this kind of truth

Question 7

Weaknesses:

Kant’s Critique (Synthetic, A Priori Truths) - Counter Argument

4

Answer 7

• Can’t necessarily call this knowledge
• Scientists could justify that a solar eclipse was going to happen at a certain time/date and believe it will happen then, but they cannot say it is 100% the truth
• According to tripartite theory of knowledge all three criteria must be met for something to be knowledge, which it is not in this case
• Disproves Kant’s critique and perhaps allows for cause and effect’s uncertainty

Question 8

Weaknesses:

Karl Popper’s Critique (Argument for Induction)

5

Answer 8

• Popper agreed with the problem of induction, but argued Hume’s claims are not how science works to find information about the world
• Hume’s outlook on science attributed to his time period, but we now know scientific research goes far beyond repetitive experiments to find general truths
• Actual process is more about trial and error than inductive reasoning
• Instead of inducing general claims from many instances we should see scientific propositions as attempts at finding answers and adjusting them when they don’t transpire as the truth
• Humans don’t rely on cause and effect for certainty, and we are okay with this - we make assumptions based on experience, but we fix them when they don’t turn out as we expect

Question 9

Weaknesses:

Karl Popper’s Critique (Argument for Induction) - Counter Argument

3

Answer 9

• It is unclear that this scientific process doesn’t have an underlying assumption that there is some general rule governing causes and effects that goes beyond a single observation
• If Hume were to respond he may question why we start with such assumptions in the first place without logical reason to apply them
• Makes Popper’s response inadmissible as he fails to add anything new to the theory - it leads to the same conclusion that there is no logical reasoning behind cause and effect

Question 10

Weaknesses:

Usage of Habit & Custom

7

Answer 10

• Humes claims we draw our interferences from seeing events in conjunction with each other, like animals
• Controversial take during Hume’s time as he suggests human psychology is like animals which goees against thoughts that humans are unique and special - although later supported by Darwin’s evolution theory
• Human pyschology more complex than Hume claims - constants conjunctions don’t always yield a belief in necessary connection
• Example: someone with a gambling addiction continues to gamble despite losing each time - they no longer gamble with the belief that they will win but because of their addiction
• Interferences also drawn from single observations
• Example: if someone got food poisoning after eating a certain food, they may not eat it ever again out of fear of the same effect despite it only occuring once
• Highlights how Hume’s theory doesn’t align with complexities of human life, making it not powerful enough for us to consider as a true theory applicable to daily life