linksstudentsitouchiinewslettersgallery English indexindex


Hume on Induction

Hume's discussion of induction and causality is one of the classics of philosophy of science. Here are extracts treating induction. For better understanding, you have to check the general framework of Hume's epistemology.

因果性と帰納に関するヒュームの議論は、科学哲学の古典の一つである。ここでは、帰納にかかわる部分の抜粋をあげておく。よりよい理解のためには、ヒュームの認識論の一般的枠組みを確認しなければならない。


 

Hume on Induction (Treatise, Book I, Part III, Section VI)

Since it appears, that the transition from an impression present to the memory or senses to the idea of an object, which we call cause or effect, is founded on past experience, and on our remembrance of their constant conjunction, the next question is, Whether experience produces the idea by means of the understanding or of the imagination; whether we are determin'd by reason to make the transition, or by a certain association and relation of perceptions. If reason determin'd us, it wou'd proceed upon that principle, that instances, of which we have had no experience, must resemble those, of which we have had experience, and that the course of nature continues always uniformly the same. In order therefore to clear up this matter, let us consider all the arguments, upon which such a proposition may be suppos'd to be founded; and as these must be deriv'd either from knowledge or probability, let us cast our eye on each of these degrees of evidence, and see whther they afford any just conclusion of this nature.

[Uchii's Note: "probability" here means, as Hume writes below, reasoning about matters of fact, distinguished from demonstrative "knowledge", obtainable from relations of ideas only; Hume does not mean our "probabilistic inference".]

Our foregoing method of reasoning will easily convince us, that there can be no demonstrative arguments to prove, that those instances, of which we have had no experience, resemble those, of which we have had experience. We can at least conceive a change in the course of nature; which sufficiently proves, that such a change is not absolutely impossible. To form a clear idea of wny thing, is an undeniable argument for its possibility, and is alone a refutation of any pretended demonstration against it.

Probability, as it discovers not the relations of ideas, consider'd as such, but only those of objects, must in some respects be founded on the impressions of our memory and senses, and in some respects on our ideas. Were there no mixture of ideas, the action of the mind, in observing the relation, wou'd, properly speaking, be sensation, not reasoning. 'Tis therefore necessary, that in all probable reasonings there be something present to the mind, either seen or remember'd; and that from this we infer something connected with it, which is not seen nor remember'd.

The only connexion or relation of objects, which can lead us beyond the immediate impressions of our memory and senses, is that of cause and effect; and that because 'tis the only one, on which we can found a just inference from one object to another. The idea of cause and effect isderiv'd from experience, which informs us, that such particular objects, in all past instances, have been constantly conjoin'd with each other: And as an object similar to one of these is suppos'd to be immediately present in its impression, we thence presume on the existence of one similar to its usual attendant. According to this account of things, which is, I think, in every point unquestionable, probability is founded on the presumption of a resemblance betwixt those objects, of which we have had experience, and those, of which we have had none; and therefore 'tis impossible this presumption can arise from probability. The same principle cannot be both the cause and effect of another; and this is, perhaps, the only proposition concerning that relation, which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, bk.i, pt.iii, sect. vi; Selby-Bigge edition, 88-90)


Last modified Jan. 26, 2018. (c) Soshichi Uchii