I do want to debate Hume's mistreatment of induction and his attack on Newton. — Ron Cram
You cannot wring causality out of concepts, nor existence from logic. Its ultimate import is that it stands as a bulwark against conceptual idealism. This is why the idea that Hume is somehow anti-science is laughable
But Hume was not wrong. You've all but admitted that short of begging the question, you can't even address Hume's problem.
Notice that Hume is not talking about a purely mental exercise. He is relying on his sense of vision. Further, he is denying the possibility to understand cause and effect such as is easily seen in one billiard ball striking another. This is clearly observed by anyone, even a child can understand that this is a transfer of kinetic energy. — Ron Cram
Also, I'm confused by your comment that one cannot wring existence from logic. You may have heard about Descartes doing exactly that... cogito ergo sum. — Ron Cram
As I said previously, if you are unable to address the question of modality, then you are unable to address Hume. That is just the case with your reading. To the flames it goes.
Hume's significance is missed entirely if it is not recognized that the argument against induction ultimately resolves into in question of modality - that is, necessity and contingency. What Hume questioned was not 'cause and effect' (whatever that would even mean), but the modality of the connection between both: he denied - and rightly so - that the connection between cause and effect has the status of logical necessity. This is why Hume is rightly regarded as an empiricist: any connection between cause and effect must be 'extra-logical', it cannot rely on (formal) logic alone, but must be grounded in something 'wordly'.
I think you are reading into the text that which is not there. — Ron Cram
I'm saying that you are adding meaning to the bolded words that Hume himself never intended. — Ron Cram
Cause and effect, is just a habit we have to get by in the world. We see something in constant conjunction and tend to use this to conclude that they will always be conjoined. However, we are using past experiences to justify this connection, something we cannot justify without using past experience itself (i.e. circular reasoning).
Cause and effect can be known. It can be observed and experienced through other senses as well. I don't know if you have read the entire discussion here or not. One of the examples I gave was that the flow of electricity and interrupting that flow by turning the switch on and off is a cause for the light bulb going on and off. One way to know this is to cut and expose the wire, hold both exposed wires and then feel the flow of electricity go through your body as the light bulb lights up.
Alternatively, you can also observe the transfer of kinetic energy when one billiard ball strikes another billiard ball and causes it to move. Hume seems to be completely ignorant of the existence of kinetic energy. But this is an observation any child can make once the existence of kinetic energy is understood.
There is no circular reasoning involved. — Ron Cram
In other words, he is looking for a justification of certainty between cause and effect, and he sees that it is lacking DESPITE the fact that indeed every time we observe certain "constant conjunctions" it does appear to us to be some sort of immutable law of cause-and-effect going on.
I understand what Hume is saying. I understand that he is not denying the existence of causes and effects. — Ron Cram
Hume is denying that they are observable or ascertainable in any way. — Ron Cram
Kinetic energy is well understood and the transfer of kinetic energy can be observed. Hume's billiard ball example is a perfect example of observing cause and effect even though Hume claims he cannot see it. I also gave you the example of electricity flowing through your body as a way to determine cause and effect. Did you read that? Care to respond? — Ron Cram
Hume's argument is a frontal attack on Newton's Law of Cause and Effect which states that causes and effects are observable and knowable. Indeed, if they were not observable and knowable, science would have no foundation. — Ron Cram
There's more to it than that. See this, for example. — Πετροκότσυφας
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.