Hume's Empiricism and the Illusion of Causality

Hume's Critique of Causality

The Empirical Basis of Causality

Hume's analysis of causality stems from empirical observation. He argues that causality is a relationship established by the mind, based on the psychological mechanisms of habit and custom. Repeated experiences create habits, which in turn form our beliefs about the future. We expect events to repeat in the future based on past occurrences due to habit.

Causality and A Priori Knowledge

Hume asserts that causal relationships cannot be known a priori. Reasoning alone, without experience, cannot reveal cause-and-effect relationships. For example, analyzing the concept of 'fire' doesn't inherently include the notion of 'pain'. Causal relationships are not between ideas; our knowledge of causes is a matter of fact, derived from experience.

Limits of Empirical Knowledge

Our empirical understanding of causality is limited to observing repeated sequences of events. Witnessing event A followed by event B doesn't necessarily mean A causes B. We can't claim causality without observing all possible instances of A and B. 'Causality' is not a necessary connection, but a 'sufficient' or repeated one.

Psychological Mechanisms of Causal Belief

Several psychological mechanisms contribute to our belief in causality:

• Contiguity: The closeness in space and time between cause and effect.
• Priority: The cause always precedes the effect.
• Constant Conjunction: The repeated association between cause and effect.

Hume distinguishes between accepting causality in everyday life (due to custom and practicality) and considering it inherently true.

Hume's Motivation

Hume's focus on causality stems from two key concerns:

• Accepting causality can lead to accepting ideas lacking empirical basis (e.g., God causing the world).
• Causality clashes with the principle of copy, which states that true knowledge comes from sensory experience.