In section five, Skeptical Solutions to These Doubts, Hume describes the foundation of inference. “Custom ( habit), then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone, which renders our experience useful to us…” (29) writes Hume. Reason and reflection are not enough to explain human understanding. I will reflect about a different example than used by Hume. Lets suppose I don’t know coffee is made with ground coffee beans and water. The question is: can I infer the mechanism of brewing if I see water and coffee brought inside a room, and coffee brought out? I would first have to know water can absorb molecules, I would also have to know that that ground coffee is penetrable, and water may travel through unlike rubber for example. It would also help if I knew what happened inside the kitchen, generally speaking. I can imagine water running through coffee and coming out clear. To answer the question I asked, no; I would not be able to infer that the pure water becomes coffee unless had certain experiences. I see why Hume explains custom is the great guide to human life.
In section six, Of Probability, Hume discusses probability and its influence on belief. Clear water will always boil at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level. As many times as I conduct this experiment, it ways be the case. I may not be educated in thermodynamics to be able to explain the phenomena, or even know water is composed of independent water molecules. But, I have a thermometer and the temperature never reaches above 100 degrees. Despite my ignorance of the phenomena, the fact that the water will boil at the same temperature every time will give me a strong confidence in understanding. Suppose a rascal contaminates my water supply with salt. The salt ions will dissolve and pull the water molecules towards them with a stronger force than the water molecules act on each other and thus raise the boiling point. My belief that the boiling temperature is 100 degrees now would be proportionate to the event.
In section nine, Hume extends cause and effect to all animals. I’m sure everyone is familiar with Pavlov’s Dog experiment where the he rings a bell preceding every meal and eventually the dog’s stomach begins releasing digestive juices after the sound of the bell. Furthermore, the intelligence of animals is rather well known today. Dogs can be trained to find bombs, drugs or help the disabled. This is not a surprise after all because animals need to utilize the principle of cause and effect for survival, something exploited in animal trainig. The mental faculties in animals are limited after all. Monkeys are caught by luring them with bananas in containers with opens small to retrieve a hand once it made a fist.
I wonder, then, if Hume would say that animals have a sort of soul? Given his focus on the psychological and how it defines thought, the ability of animals to use a sort of pseudo-reason surely indicates that they have something akin to a psyche.
ReplyDeleteHume draws a conclusion in V/Part I, namely that "all belief of matter of fact or real existence is derived merely from some object, present to the memory of senses, and a customary conjunction between that and some other object (p.30)". Custom and habit are essential contributors to the human experience. Can't the account of Christianity and the existence of God be considered as matters of fact as attributed to the accounts within the bible? The accounts of being raised from the dead, of healing wounds, leprosy, and other afflictions, are recorded by the apostles. How does Hume actually refute matters of fact obtained through written or oral tradition and passed through societal members?
ReplyDeleteIt’s safe to say for all practical purposes that we can not know but only predict events based on experience. Hume says that we only think we ‘know’ things based on experience but actually don’t because he says cause and effect have no direct connection. I think the empiricist in me would agree but for all in tense and purposes naturally put together A+B to = C. Taking the boiling water example a step further; a glass of water, a glass of salt water ,and a glass of rubbing alcohol all look exactly alike. Now without knowing what was in each glass….as a matter of fact even if you did you couldn’t know the boiling points freezing points or any other points without prior knowledge of the different liquids. Hume successfully defeats the a priori argument that knowledge can be gained without experience. That being said he also throws out every animal and human natural way of looking at the world! How can we have any knowledge if we can’t rely on causal and effect or experience? The sun will come out to tomorrow, I reckon, but I can only say that because it has a 1000+ times before. It probably will but we’ll never really know according to Hume
ReplyDeleteRaised a Jew, the notion of tradition is the most important principle. We observe acts today because we are told God gave Jews these commandments at Mount Sinai thousands of years ago. Obviously, today, no Jews know anybody who has experienced God giving over the commandments but still tradition keeps us from continuing these commandments. In class, we give examples of cause and effect like that we know the sun will rise because of experience and custom. But in regards to say religious tradition, Hume says that this belief is "without foundation"(30) because we can never trace its source. We view religion today as the source for most of our beliefs, so I find Hume's theory interested in relation to how most of the world trust things constantly that are beyond are senses.
ReplyDelete