is responsible for the effect, there is no proof that the cause is responsible for the effect’s occurrence, it could be purely coincidental. It could be imagined that the sun would go out before it rose the next day or that the sun would turn green the next day are all as justifiable as thinking the sun will rise tomorrow from the evidence from it doing so in the past. So it is because this claim is not contradictory and it can be conceived to be false, its not enough to just understand what it means to know it to be true. It takes going out and experiencing the world, to make these observations for ones self to see that the world is one way rather than another way. Therefore, according to Hume knowledge of matters of fact is impossible, he does acknowledged however that that people had to think in terms of cause and …show more content…
However Hume would say that it is because of the Impression of the hot stove burning the child that the child would reason the Idea that perhaps touching hot things will burn them. These Impressions that we take in from the outside world and inside the world of our minds help us to form ideas of the world “no Idea without a preceding Impression”. So a general strategy Hume thinks we use is the process of observing regularities, in the case of the child putting their hand on a hot stove the child will make a general assumption that touching a hot stove will burn them and relate this observations to other stoves the child has not seen with the inference of induction. However this process of induction is not a valid one to have, as it cannot be related to everything. Example being all the hairs on my head that I’ve observed are black, if I were to use this process of induction then I would assume that all of my future hairs that I grow will also be black. The issue here is that this could from what I