I do want to debate Hume's mistreatment of induction and his attack on Newton. — Ron Cram

I mean, we can try and hash together his argument for you, but in the end if that is what you really want then you'll have to read him yourself. He does a far better job of making his argument than any of us could. You'll find it in Book 1 of A Treatise of Human Nautre

Just to be clear about what exactly Hume acheived: the argument against induction shows that causality is not conceptual. 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: on the contrary, Hume secures the emprical basis of science by expelling idealism from our understanding of causality, once and for all. To argue for the logical necessity of causal connection is to argue for idealism through and through. There are few positions more contemptuous of science than that.

I studied Hume under David Stove — Wayfarer

Wow, that's neat.

I have read Hume, not everything he's written but enough for me to quote him in context and explain why Hume is wrong. If you think I've misunderstood Hume, you are welcome to try to set me straight.

I've also provided above a link to a paper - that I only recently found - that agrees that Hume is attacking Newton. If you don't understand my point, you might want to read the paper and see if his explanation of Hume's attack on Newton makes more sense to you.

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

I have no problem with an attack on conceptual idealism. I'm not a big fan of Plato. Again, let me provide you with one of the quotes from Hume that I find ridiculous:

"“When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operations of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connextion; [that is] any quality which binds the effect to the cause and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. We only find that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that attends to the outward senses."

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. Even a child understands that the second ball moves because it was struck by the first ball. All of science is built on discovering causes and effects. Philosophers who accept Hume's thought here are still in the dark ages of philosophy and can never be philosophers of science.

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. Augustine of Hippo said basically the same thing a thousand years before Descartes.

But Hume was not wrong. You've all but admitted that short of begging the question, you can't even address Hume's problem.

No, I have addressed Hume's problem repeatedly. Hume says that cause and effect cannot be observed or ascertained by any method. Hume writes that if we think we see cause and effect, we are mistaken - that what we see is really only two things that are associated in spatial and temporal conditions. Hume believes real cause and effect may exist but cannot be known.

I've been told that Hume was discussing the issue of cause and effect from the perspective of metaphysics and not physics. I've shown that claim to be false. I've been told Hume is only making the limited claim that the cause and effect cannot be learned by conceptual idealism (as if anyone claimed it could be determined by conceptual idealism). I've shown that claim to be false because Hume spoke of "looking" at billiard balls and saying that cause and effect cannot be determined by means used by scientists.

This entire conversation is almost surreal. It's like people cannot read Hume for what he is saying because they were previously told what he said and they can't get passed these previous ideas.

Again, just to be clear. I do not care about Hume's attack on metaphysics. That issue can be discussed at another time. The issue before us is Hume's attack on Newton's law of cause and effect published in the Principia in 1687. There is no way to resolved Hume's comments and Newton's law of cause and effect.

No one here has even attempted to show that Hume and Newton agree. Yet, it seems that everyone holds that belief and wants to pretend that Hume is an empiricist in the same way that Newton is. It isn't true and I cannot find any reason why so many people would hold such a clearly erroneous view.

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

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.

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

I have heard about Descartes' famously fallacious argument, yes.

Okay, I'm not a huge fan of Descartes either but I do agree with that argument. But we can save that for another time.

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.

Please explain because it seems to me that Hume is talking of straight physics with no appeal to modal logic at all. Hume is saying that we cannot observe causation. I'm saying that's ridiculous. Of course, we can see it and we can point to it in many cases. Hume's view is contrary to Newton's law of cause and effect. If you think you can prove me wrong, then do so.

I said nothing about modal logic. People have been talking about modality for centuries before the invention of modal logic. In any case, I refer you to my initial post in this thread, which went over the question. Alternatively, you can pay closer attention to your own Hume citation, in which the question of necessity stands front and centre.

Here's what you wrote in your initial post.

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'.

You discuss modality, necessity, contingency and logic. It certainly looks to me like you are discussing modal logic. Since you are not discussing modal logic. Please elaborate. Please provide a quote from Hume where mentions modality or describes what you are referring to because I don't see any of that in the passage I quoted. I see a simple denial of being able to observe or ascertain the cause of any effect, a claim which is contrary to Newton and demonstrably false.

But please quote Hume discussing modality and causality and explain how you understand the passage.

I'm happy to report that I'm finding other philosophers who are calling BS on Hume. Evidently, one was Whitehead. Here's a quote from James Gould:

"In contrast to Hume, Whitehead claims that we have many daily experiences in which we are directly aware of caused connection. He uses the famous example of the reflex action in which an electric light is suddenly turned on and a person's eyes blink. The person is directly aware that the flash caused the blink; a necessary relationship exists between the light and the blink. With this doctrine, Whitehead directly attacks Hume's influential theory of causation." - James Gould

Alternatively, you can simply read, with more attention than you have so far given, your own citation: “When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operations of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connextion; [that is] any quality which binds the effect to the cause and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other. We only find that the one does actually, in fact, follow the other. The impulse of one billiard ball is attended with motion in the second. This is the whole that attends to the outward senses."

I think you are reading into the text that which is not there. Notice the words "power or necessary connexion." Hume is describing straight physics. The power that Hume is denying in the billiard example is the transfer of kinetic force. The movement of the second ball is the infallible consequence of being struck by the first ball.

Are you also claiming that Alfred Lord Whitehead was too dense to understand Hume correctly?

I just read a book review on a book by TERENCE PENELHUM. Themes in Hume: The Self; the Will, Religion. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 2000. The reviewer writes that the author is critical of Hume in a few places:

" He believes that Hume has failed to distinguish adequately talents and virtues (148ff, 174ff), is mistaken in contending that only judgments or beliefs can properly be deemed unreasonable (150), and argues against libertarianism by somewhat dogmatically holding that every event has a cause (165ff)." http://humesociety.org/hs/issues/v27n2/steinberg/steinberg-v27n2.pdf

Here again is another philosopher who agrees that Hume is crazy to argue that cause and effect are unknowable.

I think you are reading into the text that which is not there. — Ron Cram

I literally quoted Hume's exact words with some bolding. Like, the opposite of reading things into the text which are not there. On the other hand, Hume nowhere speaks of 'kinetic force', which is something that you've quite literally conjured out of thin air to put into Hume's mouth.

And yes, there are plenty of people who disagree with Hume, but appeals to authority are meaningless and about as straightforward a case of fallacious reasoning as can be.

I'm saying that you are adding meaning to the bolded words that Hume himself never intended. You are literally reading into the text that which is not there. Not only that, but you completely ignored the word 'power' which was not modified by 'necessary.' This destroys the meaning you want to impose on Hume's text.

My mention of 'kinetic energy' was never intended to be in Hume's mouth. Rather, i commented because I was shocked that he did not use or understand that term. Hume says we cannot see cause and effect in the billiard balls. I'm agreeing with Newton that we can see a transfer of kinetic energy from one billiard ball to the other. This is plainly observable. So, I am not reading into Hume as you complain. Rather, I'm shocked that he is so ignorant and that other philosophers have not pointed this out.

And the point isn't just that some people disagree with Hume. The point is that other people disagree with Hume in exactly the same way I do. You had accused me of not understanding Hume or science. Since Whitehead and these other philosophers agree with me, then you are accusing them of being philosophical and scientific dunces as well. It should be plain to you that is not true.

I had two purposes in starting this discussion. One was to learn of other philosophers who had criticized Hume regarding his attack on Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. This discussion has not helped me at all in that regard. It seems no one here has realized and tried to resolve this obvious conflict.

My other purpose was to learn why some people think Hume and and Newton agree on cause and effect when they so obviously do not. So far, I've gotten two different attempts to explain these variant views can be resolved. One is that Hume is writing in terms of metaphysics and not physics. That simply isn't true as I've shown. The second is your attempt to show that I don't understand Hume correctly because I don't see the modality in his argument. Even with the quoted text with the bolded words, I still can't read into the text what you see there. I think it is clear that you ignored the phrase 'power or' which shows that the term 'necessary connexion' is not really 'necessary' in the sense you are trying to impose on the text. If it was, then Hume would have said 'necessary power'. I can't help but think that smart people must have some other way of misunderstanding Hume so they can reasonably think he agrees with Newton. So, my second purpose also seems rather unfulfilled.

I'm saying that you are adding meaning to the bolded words that Hume himself never intended. — Ron Cram

Hume's text stands on its own. That your two stated purposes are (1) affirming and pandering to your own preconceived view of Hume ('he was wrong'), along with (2) adressing an issue he barely raised - his relationship with Newton - speaks more to your own projections than it does to Hume's project. When your argument hinges upon the lunatic sophistry of 'necessary is not really necessary', then I can only leave you to your own devices. I wish you luck.

I don't get Ron Cram's concerns. Hume is simply stating that certainty can never be gained from matters of fact. 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). You are using the very method of induction to prove induction. Thus cause and effect (and all synthetic reasoning) can never be truly justified with any certainty. Make all the laws of physics you want, it can never be 100% certain. This, however, is built into the model of science. Scientific "facts" may seem eternal, but new evidence at a future point can change these "facts". Thus, why science is based on strong theories that support the current evidence.

Mm, it's a simple concept, seemingly hard to grasp.

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).

It seems to me that you understand Hume's point of view correctly, but don't see that he is demonstrably wrong. Hume's POV is contrary to Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. Cause and effect can be known. It can be observed and it can 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.

I changed the wording in my comment for clarification, but my point stands.

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

I think you are fighting imagined arguments. Hume is not saying that observation itself is suspect, but rather that the ground for which cause-and-effect takes place- that is to say induction, has no certainty to it because induction is using its own logic to justify itself. Thus, he is not doubting that you have senses and impressions and ideas and can extrapolate from experience using these cognitive tools some sort of understanding of how the world works, but rather, is doubting that the basis for this understanding has any justification outside human habit. 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 meant to include @StreetlightX too.

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. Hume is denying that they are observable or ascertainable in any way. I'm just pointing out that he's wrong. 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?

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.

I understand what Hume is saying. — Ron Cram

Hume is denying that they are observable or ascertainable in any way. — Ron Cram

:rofl:

Perhaps you would like to quote some passage of Hume where he writes that it is possible to observe or know causes and effects? If you cannot do that, I will continue to hold my opinion which comes from the plain reading of Hume.

You do realize, I hope, that if Hume was correct then Newton's Laws of Motion would be completely unwarranted. His Laws of Motion describe forces, causes and effects which Hume denies is possible to know.

By this time in history, philosophers should have rejected Hume. I believe the fact Hume is held in high esteem by philosophers to be the biggest cause of scientists' dislike of philosophers.

I understand what Hume is saying. I understand that he is not denying the existence of causes and effects. — Ron Cram

This is the opposite of what he said. He WAS denying whether the ground for cause-and-effect was certain, due to the inability of induction to prove itself outside of circular reasoning.

Hume is denying that they are observable or ascertainable in any way. — Ron Cram

No, that is not what he is saying. As I said earlier, "Thus, he is not doubting that you have senses and impressions and ideas and can extrapolate from experience using these cognitive tools some sort of understanding of how the world works, but rather, is doubting that the basis for this understanding has any justification outside human habit. 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"

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

Yes, I did, and you are completely missing Hume's point. See my responses above.

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

Newton was doing science as it was practiced in his time. Hume is doing philosophy. Newton is simply describing the "habits of thoughts" of what appears to be cause and effect relationship. Hume is trying to explain the ground for cause and effect. These are two different investigations.

I will include @StreetlightX again.

I always find it odd that folks who like, " you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'," can't accept "you can't get a 'will be' from a 'has been'," - and vice versa.

And each thinks Hume has a killer point against their opponent, and a ridiculous folly against themselves.

There's more to it than that. See this, for example. — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't see how this really diminishes the point I was making between Newton and Hume. Newton was answering questions about mathematical concepts as applied to observations. Hume was discussing the foundation of principles like cause-and-effect and the problem of induction. If anything Hume was mainly critical of some of the more superstitious part of his writings (related to religion mostly). It also seems to me that Hume's skepticism lead him to be an anti-realist when it came to things like "forces", "energy" and the like. He believed strongly that there were habits of thought that humans viewed the world with, and this seemed to be the source of regularities. At least in this interpretation, we see a proto-Kantianism (transcendental philosophy) coming through.