Do you think someone prior to understanding the notion of kinetic energy would see kinetic energy when they looked at moving objects?

No, I don't. But once someone understands kinetic energy, they must see it when they see a moving billiard ball. If they don't see it, they don't understand kinetic energy. It's that simple.

I read someone in the previous posts said that Hume opposed to Newtonian Science?

Yes, it's justified. Hume wrote some complimentary things about Newton, but he didn't really understand Newton's science and so he wrote things that were previously refuted by Newton but Hume didn't know it. Read the philosophy paper by Schliesser here. I've quoted several paragraphs from the paper that discuss Hume's philosophical opposition to Newton.

Also, this article on Hume and Newton. This article mentions that Hume's writings show evidence he had read Berkeley's criticism of Newton, but there's little evidence Hume really understood Principia:

"Barfoot is correct to suggest that Hume's treatment of mathematics shows debts to Berkeley's criticism of Newton. There is less evidence for Barfoot's claim that Hume would have had working knowledge of the most technical parts of the Principia."

I also recommend this paper. The abstract begins: "In this paper, I analyze Hume's missing shade of blue example from a Newtonian point of view. I argue that an analysis of the missing shade of blue example reveals considerable ignorance of Newton's achievements in optics."

Schliesser also wrote his dissertation on Hume and his "lack of knowledge" about Newton's accomplishments.

If Hume had been arguing against Newton, he would have been written off as a loony, rather than being as respected as he was in his time.

Hume was not respected in his time. His books didn't sell well and the people who understood Hume well, such as Thomas Reid, criticized him sharply. Kant also wrote against Hume. Kant's biggest problem is that he also was not a good student of Newton and he gave Hume too much credit. Hume's fame didn't really show up until after he died.

Well, all I can say is that your hypothesis is falsified: I understand kinetic energy and yet I certainly don't see it when I watch moving billiard balls (and I've played plenty of snooker and eight ball in pubs and even won a competition, so I know what I'm talking about).

I would say instead that the idea of the energy of the balls is conveyed in the speed of their movement and the sound of their striking one another, and is not directly seen at all but felt in the body. In other words it is misleading to speak of it as a visual phenomenon when it is equally an auditory phenomenon and it consists mostly in an associative somatic response.

Do you see kinetic energy when you watch a film of moving billiard balls? Of course we can have just the same response as we do in 'real' situations, which shows that 'seeing kinetic energy' is not really seeing kinetic energy at all, but consists in an associative somatic response coupled with a conceptually based inference. If you think you do see kinetic energy when watching a film you are obviously mistaken because there is no really no kinetic energy (of the kind and intensity that you think you are perceiving, at least) present in the phenomenon you are perceiving.

So what is the actual Newtonian Method that Hume have adopted to study human nature?
How could principles of natural science be applied for study of mental workings of human nature?

Are there some examples of the actual methods being applied in the discourse of the Treatise and Enquiries?

Sorry but the link wouldn't let me download the document because my ipad had no MS Word.

How could principles of natural science be applied for study of mental workings of human nature?

They cannot. Natural science is possible only because nature always repeats itself. If the same conditions apply, nature will do exactly the same thing. The mental workings of humans are not so. In the exact situation different humans will respond differently. In fact, in the same situation even the same human will react different if he is in a different mood.

The only way to conclude that humans would all react in the same way would be if you believed in determinism and that humans do not have, at the very least, a limited free will. But this is an idea that is testable with a simple thought experiment. If you are convicted of a crime and locked in prison, would you feel like your will has been limited? Of course, the answer is yes. You recognize that you have lost something important to you - your freedom.

Hume and Adam Smith should probably be credited as the founder of psychology, but it is wrong to think of this discipline as a natural science. Many fields, political science, psychology, sociology, are given a status as a "science" but this is only through a misunderstanding of what science actually is or an honorary title bestowed because the field attempts a systematic and thorough examination of the data. Only the hard sciences are science. The soft sciences are just studies of human behavior.

Sorry but the link wouldn't let me download the document because my ipad had no MS Word.

Can you read PDFs? This link is to Schliesser's dissertation.

Well, all I can say is that your hypothesis is falsified

I said "if" someone understands kinetic energy, they will see it when they see billiard balls moving.

I would say instead that the idea of the energy of the balls is conveyed in the speed of their movement and the sound of their striking one another, and is not directly seen at all but felt in the body. In other words it is misleading to speak of it as a visual phenomenon when it is equally an auditory phenomenon and it consists mostly in an associative somatic response.

This is proof you do not understand kinetic energy.

Explain your understanding of kinetic energy so that I can see how it differs from mine.

The kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. This is rather standard definition. If you see an object in motion, you can see that it has kinetic energy. When you see that object strike another object, it slows down or stops and the other object (if its inertial energy is small enough to be overcome by the transfer of kinetic energy) will begin to move.

Yes, I was able to download and view the PDF link. It seems a wonderful book. Thank you.

I can see your point, and fully agree with you about the Newtonian methods and Humean approach.
It woke me up from a slumber in that regard in Hume studies. Thanks.

What does the energy look like?

Your welcome.

It looks like a body in motion. If you see a body in motion, then you are looking at a body that has kinetic energy. it really is that simple.

To quote Newton: "... it is plain that the absolute forces of those bodies are as the bodies themselves." Page 153 of the Principia

The kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. This is rather standard definition. If you see an object in motion, you can see that it has kinetic energy. When you see that object strike another object, it slows down or stops and the other object (if its inertial energy is small enough to be overcome by the transfer of kinetic energy) will begin to move. — Ron Cram

Well That is exactly my understanding of kinetic energy; which means that according to you I do understand it. And yet I do not experience "seeing kinetic energy". How do you explain that? Perhaps all humans are not the same; in which case, even if you do experience seeing kinetic energy, it would not necessarily that I would experience the same.

It looks like a body in motion. If you see a body in motion, then you are looking at a body that has kinetic energy. it really is that simple. — Ron Cram

You're are equivocating; 'looking at a body that has kinetic energy' is not the same as 'looking at kinetic energy'; whatever that could even mean.

No, I'm not equivocating. Movement of a body is kinetic energy. When you look at a body that is moving, then you are seeing a body with kinetic energy. Can you see movement? If so, then you can see kinetic energy. See the Newton quote I provided.

Let's look at it a couple of different ways. Is the speed of the moving body accelerating? Then its kinetic energy is increasing. You can literally observe the kinetic energy increasing. Is the speed of the moving body slowing? Then the kinetic energy is dissipating. You can literally watch the kinetic energy increase, decrease, start, stop and transfer to another body. This is all perfectly well understood by anyone who understands kinetic energy.

Why is this hard for you? Perhaps you are confusing observing kinetic energy with measuring kinetic energy. Measuring kinetic energy is a different task. But observing the presence of kinetic energy or change in the kinetic energy or the transfer of kinetic energy is very easy with the unaided eye.

I'm trying to determine exactly what portion of my explanation you are having trouble with. What claim are you denying?

Let's take the Mike Trout home run example I used early on. When a pitcher throws the ball, do you agree that the ball has kinetic energy? Do you agree that you can observe the fact the ball has kinetic energy without the need of special instruments? When Mike Trout hits the ball, the ball changes directions and increases in velocity. We may not be able to see the increase in velocity with the naked eye, but we can certainly see the change in direction, correct? And we have radar guns that will confirm the increase in velocity. Do you doubt that the contact of Mike's bat with the ball is the cause of the change of direction and velocity? And do you agree that our observation of the bat hitting the ball is confirmed by the sound of the bat hitting the ball? Where exactly are you having trouble?

Perhaps this science paper explaining how momentum from the bat transfers kinetic energy to the ball would be helpful to you.