Hume's Experience And The Limits Of Human Reasoning

In Section IV of Experience and the Limits of Human reasoning, Hume states human reason divides into two kinds. One being relations of ideas and the other being matters of fact. Relations of ideas have no need for experience, also known as a priori, and encompass logically certain statements. An example being three times two equals six. Matters of fact, on the other hand, rely on experience—a posteriori—and the “contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction” (115). Further on, Hume suggests all reasonings dealing with matter of fact implement the process of cause and effect; knowing the sun will rise tomorrow comes from numerous past experiences of the sun rising every single day in the past. Knowledge such as this

By having an experience of trying to breathe water, Adam learns humans cannot use water as a source of oxygen for breathing. However, that raises the question of how does one know the notion of cause and effect? Hume uses the example of the two billiard balls. If the first billiard ball moves towards the second and strikes it, how does one know if the second one will move? Knowing the ball will move, as Hume suggests, does not come from a priori due to the reason being anyone can deny the second billiard ball moving without contradiction. With that, cause and effect appear distinct from one another; the movement of the first billiard ball using a priori explains nothing about the movement of the second ball. Using that thought, Hume ultimately concludes the knowledge of cause and effect comes from experience. Yet, this notion raises an epistemological problem. If knowledge of future events derives from past experiences, how does one know past experiences provide decent predictions of the future? Predicting the future comes from experience and sensations from previous experiences, but not from rational justification. Hume’s “skeptical solution” to this is that humans use habit instead