Hume specifically argued that one could not say one billiard ball caused another billiard ball to move by striking it. — Ron Cram

Can you give a reference for this? Three points: 1) I doubt he argued precisely in these terms, 2) if you're saying he said, then probably you should be able to provide references, 3) in general, references to underpin discussion are good.

Hume declared that cause and effect was not observable or ascertainable by sense data or logic. — Ron Cram

Are you sure? Asking, not telling. I think he must have meant that any laws of cause and effect weren't observable. Cause and effect itself is observable all day every day.

I have begun working on my second paper contra Hume. I call it "Hume's Failed Attack on Newton's Law of Cause and Effect." I am pretty happy with the Abstract and would be interested to talk about it.

I don’t quite remember, but didn’t physicists have to change or at least clarify a part Newton’s theory to refute Hume’s argument?

Interesting topic as it specifically relates to Hume. A quick question arises, though, are you suggesting that on principle, Newtonian physics is acceptable in this day & age (independently of whether Hume’s causal objection impugned it or not)?

Regardless, I agree that Hume’s causal objection is objectionable (even if, not for the same reason or reasons), although only to an extent; so, nonetheless, I personally still accept Hume’s argument in regards to the relation between sensible things or objects of experience, but, I don’t accept it when comes to the relation between sensible & sentient things (& as all sensible things or objects of experience cannot be, in truth, taken as sentient, the reality of the distinction between sensible & sentient things is admitted [which leads me to my partial rejection of Hume’s objection]).

Hume has something stronger in mind. It isn't just that laws of cause and effect aren't observable, but rather that there are no laws of cause and effect.

Since any causal relationship is nothing more than an appearance of some states together, no appeal can be made to an outside governing law. The states consitute what is there/define the causal relationship. A law of cause and effect cannot function because there is always just the states doing their relationship. As such, the states can always override any law might assert governs what are possible causal outcomes.

For exmaple, if there occurs a state of a ball which floats up when released, our insistence the ball must fall down by a law of gravity has no power at all.

Hume does say that cause and effect is not observable. We can only observe events following each other, not the causal connection. However, we are in the habit of noticing a pattern and therefore we assume that things will be repeated in the same fashion every time. This assumption is unfounded, but it is useful. (We don’t jump off cliffs believing we can fly next time we try.)

I would guess Hume also found Newton useful because his “laws” stipulated a pattern that could be used for developing practical invention, without there being any ultimate truth to those laws. He didn’t ultimately believe in gravity, but probably found the belief useful for practical purposes, so he could safely praise Newton.

Still, his theory is disturbing because whatever he says, of course we all believe in gravity and we really think one ball causes the other to roll even though that is not strictly observable. Luckily, Kant saves our obvious belief with a nice twist. He agrees with Hume that causation is not observable, but he places it in us as a pre-existing, pre-programmed category and thereby secures its reality. Causation really exists, not in itself, but as a necessity in us.

Can you give a reference for this? Three points: 1) I doubt he argued precisely in these terms, 2) if you're saying he said, then probably you should be able to provide references, 3) in general, references to underpin discussion are good — tim wood

You asked for some references. I will give you a few quotes. The billiard ball illustration was actually one he returned to several times.

In the Treatise Hume writes:
Having thus discovered or supposed the two relations of contiguity and succession to be essential to causes and effects, I find I am stopped short, and can proceed no further in considering any single instance of cause and effect. Motion in one body is regarded upon impulse as the cause of motion in another. When we consider these objects with utmost attention, we find only that the one body approaches the other; and that the motion of it precedes that of the other, but without any, sensible interval. It is in vain to rack ourselves with farther thought and reflection upon this subject. We can go no farther in considering this particular instance. T.1.3.2

Should any one leave this instance, and pretend to define a cause, by saying it is something productive of another, it is evident he would say nothing. For what does he mean by production? Can he give any definition of it, that will not be the same with that of causation? If he can; I desire it may be produced. If he cannot; he here runs in a circle, and gives a synonymous term instead of a definition. T.1.3.2

In the first Enquiry, Hume writes:
The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it. Motion in the second Billiard-ball is a quite distinct event from the motion in the first; nor is there anything in the one to suggest the smallest hint of the other. Section 25

When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connexion; 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 appears to the outward senses. The mind feels no sentiment or inward impression from this succession of objects: Consequently, there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion. Section 50

The first time a man saw the communication of motion by impulse, as by the shock of two billiard balls, he could not pronounce that the one event was connected: but only that it was conjoined with the other. After he has observed several instances of this nature, he pronounces them to be connected. What alteration has happened to give rise to this new idea of connexion? Nothing but that he now feels these events to be connected in his imagination, and can readily foretell the existence of one from the appearance of the other. Section 59

Cause and effect itself is observable all day every day. — tim wood

I'm glad you agree with me.

I don’t quite remember, but didn’t physicists have to change or at least clarify a part Newton’s theory to refute Hume’s argument? — NOS4A2

I don't know what you are referring to here.

Interesting topic as it specifically relates to Hume. A quick question arises, though, are you suggesting that on principle, Newtonian physics is acceptable in this day & age (independently of whether Hume’s causal objection impugned it or not)? — aRealidealist

No. I'm not saying anything close to that. I would be willing to say that Newtonian physics are a huge improvement over Cartesian physics and cosmology. Newtonian physics have been made more precise by Einstein's theory, but Einstein's equations still require Newton's g for gravitational constant and the value remains the same.

Regardless, I agree that Hume’s causal objection is objectionable (even if, not for the same reason or reasons), although only to an extent; so, nonetheless, I personally still accept Hume’s argument in regards to the relation between sensible things or objects of experience, but, I don’t accept it when comes to the relation between sensible & sentient things (& as all sensible things or objects of experience cannot be, in truth, taken as sentient, the reality of the distinction between sensible & sentient things is admitted [which leads me to my partial rejection of Hume’s objection]). — aRealidealist

And why would you accept it between objects?

Hume has something stronger in mind. It isn't just that laws of cause and effect aren't observable, but rather that there are no laws of cause and effect. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Your description of Hume's view is correct. This is a frontal attack on Newton and his Law of Cause and Effect. And, of course, Newton is right and Hume is wrong.

For exmaple, if there occurs a state of a ball which floats up when released, our insistence the ball must fall down by a law of gravity has no power at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I wish you could hear yourself.

Still, his theory is disturbing because whatever he says, of course we all believe in gravity and we really think one ball causes the other to roll even though that is not strictly observable. Luckily, Kant saves our obvious belief with a nice twist. He agrees with Hume that causation is not observable, but he places it in us as a pre-existing, pre-programmed category and thereby secures its reality. Causation really exists, not in itself, but as a necessity in us. — Congau

You understand Hume and Kant correctly. Of course, they are both spouting nonsense. Causation is clearly observable. Physical necessity exists.

I do hear myself.

Hume is correct because he rightly identifies causal relations to be a feature of existing states, rather than being formed out of concepts of laws we imagine. "Laws" only function to describe when states are acting that way.

No. simple causation is directly observed. In the case of simple causes, they exist in the form of physical necessity which we can understand, predict and control. The laws exist because of this physical necessity. Hume never graduated from university and never completed a course in natural philosophy. If he had, he would not have made these simple mistakes.

Hume never graduated from university and never completed a course in natural philosophy. If he had, he would not have made these simple mistakes. — Ron Cram

So why do you think David Hume rates as a philosopher? Why do you think Emmanuel Kant regarded it as such a serious challenge?

So why do you think David Hume rates as a philosopher? Why do you think Emmanuel Kant regarded it as such a serious challenge? — Wayfarer

Interesting question. Kant's biggest mistake as a philosopher was taking Hume seriously. By attempting to refute Hume and doing a poor job of it, Kant really did a disservice to philosophy. But then the earlier refutations by Reid, Beattie and Priestley were not great either.

A thorough refutation could have been given by some of the really good Newtonian natural philosophers. For example, Willem s'Gravesande could have done one before he passed in 1742 but Newtonians simply didn't care to waste time refuting skeptics. They would rather be about the work.

Interesting. So are you developing your paper in a philosophy department?

So are you developing your paper in a philosophy department? — Wayfarer

No, usually at home or a Starbucks. I'm not an academic.

Thanks. :up:

To say we observe cause and effect is false. We assume there is a law, but the law could be different from what we think. That's Hume's point

To say we observe cause and effect is false. — Gregory

No, Hume is wrong. When we watch a match burn, we are seeing cause and effect. The flame is the cause of the match being consumed. We understand the physical necessity of a flame needing fuel for the fire. When we watch a brick shatter a window, we are seeing cause and effect. No solid objects cannot pass through each other. We understand the physical necessity of the glass breaking so the brick can pass through. There are thousands of everyday examples like these. In Hume's day, he could have watched an executioner chop off a prisoner head. The blade separated the head from the body and the person died. This is cause and effect. We know a body cannot live when the head is separated. We understand the physical necessity.

Hume is correct because he rightly identifies causal relations to be a feature of existing states, rather than being formed out of concepts of laws we imagine. "Laws" only function to describe when states are acting that way. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So far, I entirely agree with Ron Cram. However, based on my understanding of what he and Hume are saying, I can't see why anyone would have EVER taken Hume seriously. Now obviously, Hume WAS and IS taken seriously in philosophy circles. So, I must be missing something. I feel I am way off, so it may require some patience on your part (so I will understand if you ignore this entirely, haha).

Hume is correct because he rightly identifies causal relations to be a feature of existing states — TheWillowOfDarkness

I will show my ignorance immediately. First off, when you say "identifies causal relations" you mean "identify what appear to be causal relations", right? If that is right then we are saying that "what appears to be causal relations are actually just things that exist that are not in any way causally related"...right?

Wouldn't cause and effect work to explain the way things "appear" in the same way that math explains things?

If there is NO cause and effect, doesn't that render science as no more valid than magic? So how should we interpret the repeat-ability of experiments?

rather than being formed out of concepts of laws we imagine. "Laws" only function to describe when states are acting that way. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't feel the need to refer to any "laws" in order to understand cause and effect? Wouldn't understanding of cause and effect come WAY before the creation of any laws? What are the laws based on if cause and effect is meaningless?

Wait, Is he just saying that cause and effect are subjective not objective? No that can't be it, as cause and effect can be demonstrated objectively (through a repeat-able experiment) as well as ANY concept can be, right?

As you can probably tell, I don't get it. I am willing to read a little, but if you point me at whole books, I will just concede that you know more than me and move on with my day (I am already willing to concede that you know more than me, but I am not yet willing to move on with my day, haha).

How many times do you have to test something before it becomes a law? This question shows the correctness of Hume's argument. Whenever things go wrong in science, they say something must have caused it. Instead of saying the laws of nature can change orhave a regularity we can't predict, they posit multi-verses. Science about cosmology especially is completely fruitless. There could be "green apple" laws or "pink elephant laws" that we don't know about that change all the equations from the early universe.

Newton's Law of Cause and Effect." — Ron Cram

What's that, then?

Still, his theory is disturbing — Congau

Funny. To me this was one theory early on in learning philosophy as a dilettante, validated me for myself as a real philosopher. This tenet of Hume's assured me I am not crazy when I decided for myself, prior to learing Hume's theory or even knowing that he had ever existed, that natural laws can be broken, without the magic power of the supernatural, but only philosophically speaking, as what humans call natural laws are not laws per se but only our ordering in our minds the events of the wrold we observe.

I was in my twenties when I realized that a priori logic is not something that can incorporate empirical observations, for this very reason.

I extrapolated, falsely or wrongly, then, that in some universes therefore fundamental a priori logical laws could also be broken. For instance, 1+1+1 can equal one. Or some thing can both exist and not exist at the same time and at the same respect.

I was argued against my hypotheses, that a priori laws can be broken by empirical observations. But much later, 40 years later, math in quantum theory did prove me right.

I attended a lecture by a philosophy professor at Western University, which he gave us, a bunch of dilettantes, about seven years ago. He said that our, human's, logic is intuitive, and we developed it as a consequence of reality we have observed as a developing, evolving species; it is an innate, congenital quality, but unfortunately our logic, which philosophers now call Logic One, can be differed by reality, which acts and behaves to the logical laws in empirical matters and manners to Logic Two, which is unacceptable by the human brain and is unintuitive, or intuitively impossible by humanly acceptable and accepted standards.

Aft this lecture, when he talked about how in some instances the caused event preceds in time the causing event, I walked up to him, and said, if we can accept that our natural brains are inadequate at making it possible to accept things that are a priori-wise wrong, but do happen in reality, then under what rights do we insist that the unintuitive events and occurrences can only happen in quantum fields, and not, for instance, in such parts of reality, as the impossibility of the Holy Trinity? I mean, if we are forced ot accept that our intuitions can't declare the unintuitive self-contradictions untrue, then why can't we apply this to religion and to Imposible Studies 101, why do we only accpet it as a part of natural sciences where math cruelly forces us to do so? He hoed and hummed, and totally never responded to my emails.

Newton's Law of Cause and Effect."
— Ron Cram

What's that, then? — Banno

Precisely. Newton discovered many laws, such as preservation of momentum and energy, such as the nature of acceleration by gravity, such as the law that for every force there is an equal and opposite force, such as that things move without change in their movemnent or are at rest indefinitely until a force is applied ot them, (the law of inertia, I believe), and that things do need force to change speed or velocity; but Newton's laws do not comprise a law called Casue and Effect (Cause a Effet in french, and Schneiderheidigpanzerkraftgewerbunghaffen und Scholtzstuckengrafenpfeifferpferdenheidigungingung in German). According to what I know, anyhow.

It would indeed be interesting to see that the peer review process would accept a paper that debunks one of the theories of Newton which he never made.

Which we all precisely mimicked, until Banno's post as above.

I don't feel the need to refer to any "laws" in order to understand cause and effect? Wouldn't understanding of cause and effect come WAY before the creation of any laws? What are the laws based on if cause and effect is meaningless? — ZhouBoTong

Precisely, but the development of thought re: laws and cause and effect is a bit like which came first, the chicken or the other chicken.

If you believe that cause and effect is the rule of the day, then it follows that laws can exist. But humans first discovered laws, some, and a limited number of laws, but some laws anyway, and from the existence of laws they derived that cause and effect is the rule of our universe.

The thema of the previous post of mine prior to this very one, can be debunked by asking me, to describe precisely how the sequence of events happened, with historical documentation. Well, I wasn't there, so this is only a hypotheses on my part.

After all, early man, and humans in currently primitive societies, create explanations for things and events that they could not or can't explain, and that is PRECISELY because humans have a predisposition to believe that cause-effect chains rule the universe's every change and every movement.

For instance, how come the sun gets up in the east, on a flat earth, and sets in the west, yet without any visible movement next moring 'tis again on the east side? Well, the ancient Latvians thought that the sun takes a canoe or raw-boat across the south seas every night to be on time at the east side when it's time for it to get up.

Similar explanations existed all over the place in all cultures, and our superstitions such as a black cat crossing our path of travel is detrimental to us are the remnants of them, proving that humans hankered to see the world around them as a world of cause-and-effect. This is an innate human need, and I hardly think we would have gotten off and out of the trees without it.

What's that, then? — Banno

In the Principia, Newton tells us how we can learn causes and effects by studying the motions of
bodies. After discussing motions, he then demonstrates the existence of several laws. The Third Law of Motion is also known as Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. It discusses the transfer of kinetic energy such as when one billiard ball strikes another and causes it to move. Newton's doesn't use the term "transfer of kinetic energy" because that term began to be used only in the mid-1800s. But the concept was known and understood since Newton. I will give you a few notes from the Principia.

Begin quotes
Axioms, or Laws of Motion
Law I
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon. P19

Projectiles persevere in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downward by the force of gravity… The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in more free spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time. P19

Law II
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. P19

Law III
To every action there is always opposed an equal action: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. P19

Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone.

If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, towards the contrary part. The changes in these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motion of bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. P20

End Quote

Note: Here Newton is discussing the transfer of kinetic energy, although he does not refer to it by that name. Specifically, Newton is saying when a transfer of kinetic energy happens, the motion of both bodies are changed by that impact. The impact itself (the impinging) is the cause of the observed effect.

Remember that Hume never completed his coursework on natural philosophy. He never read Galileo, Kepler, Huygens, etc. and so he did not have a good foundation to understand Newton when he read the Principia. Hume did not understand why natural philosophers consider the quantity of matter and the quantity of motion to be primary qualities of objects and the color and smell to be secondary qualities. I will point out the color and smell become important in chemistry, but they are not important in physics.

Hume also wrote: "The instance of motion, which is commonly made use of to show after what manner perception depends, as an action, upon its substance, rather confounds than instructs us. Motion to all appearance induces no real or essential change on the body, but only varies its relation to other objects." T.1.4.5. Location 3592 in Kindle

Hume admits that he is confounded by motion. He read Newton but did not understand him. Hume disagreed with Newton, but he did so out of ignorance.

To me this was one theory early on in learning philosophy as a dilettante, validated me for myself as a real philosopher. — god must be atheist

Don't take this wrong, but you are a very odd person.

The Third Law of Motion is also known as Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. — Ron Cram

Sir Isaac Newton published his work about the laws of motion in 1687. The concept of Law of Cause and Effect was introduced in the 19th century with the advent of Spiritism. — http://sirwilliam.org/en/the-law-cause-effect-reaction/

I call it "Hume's Failed Attack on Newton's Law of Cause and Effect." — Ron Cram

I don't know... I won't be the judge, but I wouldn't call it that.