HQ13

Class Responses and Instructor Comments

>From john:

because the causes cannot be seen.

>rm says: Fair enough. But we do see antecedent events. Why can't we infer the effects by examine the customary preceding events? (E.g. Why can't we discover that the pen will fall by examining the letting go of the pen?)

>From W Y N:

Causes is what produces the effect? If there is no causes, therefore there should be no effect of any kind? The causes though might produce many different effects. Effects are sometimes more than the five senses we use? The example you use, doesn't it contradict it? What happens if there is no gravity. Wouldn't it depends on the situation?

>rm says: The question here is not so much about the existence of causes, as about our ability to know them. So, we know there are events. We presume there are causes, but we can't discover them by merely looking at the effects, says Hume. So I ask, why not?

Hume Reading Guide 13. Why can't effects be discovered by examining their causes?		Back to Hume Reading Guide Back to Philosophy 101 Home Next Question
Enter your response to the above question, or to a previous response, in the form below, or use this email link. I will post your response on the right, and comment if I think I can be helpful. When emailing, instead of using the form, please indicate the question number. When using the form below, if you neglect to enter your name or email, I won't know who you are.	Class Responses and Instructor Comments >From john: because the causes cannot be seen. >rm says: Fair enough. But we do see antecedent events. Why can't we infer the effects by examine the customary preceding events? (E.g. Why can't we discover that the pen will fall by examining the letting go of the pen?) >From W Y N: Causes is what produces the effect? If there is no causes, therefore there should be no effect of any kind? The causes though might produce many different effects. Effects are sometimes more than the five senses we use? The example you use, doesn't it contradict it? What happens if there is no gravity. Wouldn't it depends on the situation? >rm says: The question here is not so much about the existence of causes, as about our ability to know them. So, we know there are events. We presume there are causes, but we can't discover them by merely looking at the effects, says Hume. So I ask, why not?
Write your comments here: Your Name: Your email: