David Hume and causation?

Question

Hume argued that when we observe A always followed by B, we erroneously say that A causes B. Hence what we call causation is really nothing but the constant conjunction of two events. But what about the following counter-example?

Two very accurate clocks are set so that one always strikes the hour 10 seconds after the other. Hence there is a constant conjunction - the striking of A is always followed immediately by the striking of B. Yet we would NOT in this case say that the former caused the latter. So there must be something more to our notion of causation than mere constant conjunction. Did Hume appreciate this?

Answer 1

Hume  thought there to be a Necessary Connexion between causes and effects, in the given example the two clocks are niether cause nor effect for each other, better example for his view is fire and ashes, tidal waves and errosion, my answer and your objection.  

Answer 2

Wow. Did you think of that proposition yourself? Excellent. Unfortunately, I cannot say yes or not. But I can offer this:

"As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no “facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise” as against “facts which must be.” There are only: facts which are . . . Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. Metaphysically, all facts are inherent in the identities of the entities that exist; i.e., all facts are “necessary.” In this sense, to be is to be “necessary.” The concept of “necessity,” in a metaphysical context, is superfluous."

Leonard Peikoff “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” from

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology; Ayn Rand

But taking your analogy further, I think Hume would completely dismiss the "Butterly effect" as utterly ridiculous, as well he should. That "effect" is no more causitive than your construction. That the sun rises every morning has to do with the relationship of the two astral bodies.

The two clocks could be on different continents, their owners unaware of each other's clocks. There is no conjunction as Hume means it. But as you can see by the quote above, Hume's epistemology was all wet.

Answer 3

Each example of "causation" must be assessed on its own merits to differentiate it from mere coincidence.

The example you gave is indeed an example of constant conjunction, since it has been set (configured) that way.  It is the deliberate SET UP, or CONFIGURATION, that has CAUSED A to follow B.

(haven't really heard about Hume to be honest!)

Answer 4

all i know is that hume's position suggest a life of being open and not just a mere follower of rationality that is without basis.

Answer 5

maybe he appreciated this but i'd say the important point is to raise the suspicion that just because two things happen in time does not mean they are connected.

If a comet falls on the horizon and someone gets sick, these may not be connected. The matter is about understanding the environment and what we think are legitimate causal connections. But what if we don't understand the universe and we must be careful or make these connections with insufficient information. For example:

Pushing buttons on the key board, we assume the finger pushing is causing this, But without sophisticated understanding of molecular physics you would not know that between the finger and key pad there is a space of electro magnetic force. And your finger isn't really touching anything as you think of it. In deed matter has lots of space, like looking at a group of dots from far away it looks solid.

Yes your understanding of causation is different from your understanding of constatnt conjuction. Hume is saying it shouldn't be. It is erroneos has he himself states. You show me a clear example of constant conjuction, no problem. Now show me an example of causation and I will show you just like the key pad that there is no causation. You think there is but it isn't. That's the illusion whooooo.

Humans live under many illusions, if we step away from the social conciousness ie turn off the tv and deal with the people who e4xist and what they believe. We will see it is just as varied as anything. Many silly beliefs and understandings, am we really any better. We connect many events but not always is it causation. We (certainly males) love reason and order. The world is not logical, it doesn't care. That's why women make better witches.  

Answer 6

I don't have an 'answer' (if I did I'd expect a seat at a major university and quite a few academic prizes), but using 'chaotic' and 'statistically' in the same sentence is a problem, not to mention 'vastly' and 'more likely'. You really do have to define terms.

I do like Yaoi's response ( I have to be careful about using the word 'answer' ). I assume she meant butterfly, not butterly.

The following site may be of interest:

http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.htm...

Answer 7

Hume probably appreciated that not every two things happening in conjunction are linked but was suggesting the possibility of humanity developing assumptions suggesting that they do out of ignorance or some striving urge to give everything a cause or meaning.