avid Hume (1711-1776) is one of the British Empiricists of the early modern period. Hume is known for applying rigorously to causation and necessity. We build up all our ideas from simple impressions by three laws. Resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. Hume distinguishes between relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas are, for the most part, mathematical truths, so denial of them would result in a contradiction. Hume challenges us to consider what experience allows us to know about cause and effect. Hume’s skeptical argument regarding causation and scientific inquiry is how our beliefs and reasoning regarding matters of fact implicate inferences from causes to effects or from effects to causes. Hume observes that while we may perceive two events that seem to occur in conjunction, there is no way for us to know the nature of their connection. …show more content…
Relations of ideas (logically necessary, a priori, universal) versus Matters of fact (logically contingent, a posteriori, existential). “We then call the one object, cause; the other, effect. We suppose that there is some connexion between them; some power in the one, by which it infallibly produces the other, and operates with the greatest certainty and strongest necessity.” We often assume that one thing causes another, but it is just as possible that one thing does not cause the other. Why causal relations are matters of fact, and not relations of ideas ( the connection of causes and effect is neither logically necessary nor a priori) but can’t something’s cause or effect be deduced from a covering law such that all or only events of type A