Back to the Philosophy 101 Home Page
Back to Main Lecture Notes Page
Lecture Notes: November 25
References herein to Hume's work are via page numbers in the Hackett.
Hume denies that we access to causes.
But we use this concept, so he must provide an account of what we commmonly take to be causes.
So, for Hume,
what is a 'cause'? (p 51)
Notice that it's a mental phenomenon, not an external one. (pp 35-6)
Weak problem
of induction: We are too limited, and can not gather enough evidence to draw
the conclusions (concerning the workings of the world) that we draw.
The weak problem isn't Hume's problem.
Strong problem of induction: Even given all possible evidence from the past, we can't know that the laws of nature won't shift radically and unexpectedly.
This is Hume's
problem.
See pp 19,
22.
We can re-cast this problem as one of trying to determine why we choose certain predictions over others.
For example, given an object, like a book, held aloft:
Prediction 1: The book will drop when I let go.
Prediction 2: The book will remain floating in the air.
We choose prediction 1.
Hume's problem is to provide an account, acceptable to the empiricist, which justifies our choice.
And this seems impossible, given that we have no experience of causes, no reason to believe that the future will resemble the past, no justification for the principle of uniformity of nature.
This principle, he says, is an unsupported prejudice.
Hume, still, strongly believes the laws. (pp 38-9)
No chance in nature. (p 37)
He worries about determinism, in Section VIII.
Reliance on science and evidence. (p 73)
Against miracles, and for uniformity of nature. (pp 76-7)
For the
existence of the (material) universe.
All of this belief
arises, of course, from habit (p 104)
Berkeley's right about the primary/secondary distinction (106a) but goes beyond
legitimate inference to God. (p 105)
Berkeley claims that views like Hume lead to skepticism.
Hume agrees, in a way.
But denies that it leads to immorality. (See Section VIII)
Hume sees skepticism as practically defeasible. (p 109)
Extreme skepticism as self-refuting. (pp 103, 110)
An interesting
question, does God (presuming his existence, even if unknown to us) know the
laws?
Or are laws merely human constructs?
A possible answer: God works only in particulars, and has no need for universals,
and scientific generalizations.
This seems like Berkeley!
The New Problem of Induction (a la Nelson Goodman; See Fact, Fiction, and
Forecast)
You know what
it means for an object to be green.
Nor, consider the property grue: Green until 1/1/2010; but blue, thereafter.
How can you tell if a plant, or an emeral, is green or grue?
All evidence for one is evidence for the other.