Reaction: What’s so Unobservable about Causation?

Richard Brown over at Philosophy Sucks! recently posted about Causation. His argument is against Hume, in that he feels he can see the relation in A cause B. He gives examples of billiard balls, gravity, pain and many more. He alsogoes on to say how he feels he can see the relation between two events.

I found this post very interesting, and enjoyed how it challenged my beliefs, but I do disagree. I feel that Brown is missing Hume's point. Hume's view as I understand it is that we cannot see causation like I see a bird flying in the air. We can not point to something and say "look, there it is, you are looking at causation." Take Hume's example of the sun rising. The sun has rose everyday since I can remember. Not one day in my life did the sun not rise. Does this mean it is going to rise tomorrow? No, it doesn't. It is very likely and very probable that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I can not point to something and say, "There it is, there is the cause for the sun rising." Similarly, if every time I throw a basketball at the ground, it bounces back up, is it necessarily so that the next time I throw it at the ground it will bounce up? No, it is not necessary, it is only likely.

I feel that brown needs to observe Hume's thoughts on probability and his views on causation and he will have a better understanding on what is so unobservable in causation.



The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ~ Soren Kierkegaard