Causality, Experience, and the Limits of Human Knowledge
Cause and Effect: Distinct Events
Every effect is a distinct event from its cause. Therefore, it cannot be discovered in its cause, and its initial finding, or a priori determination, must be entirely arbitrary. Even after an effect is suggested, its connection with the cause appears equally arbitrary, as many other effects seem consistent with natural reason. Thus, we cannot determine any single event or infer any cause or effect without observation and experience.
Limits of Human Understanding
Regarding general causes, we cannot discover their ultimate sources or principles. These are closed to human curiosity and research. Even the most perfect natural philosophy reveals only a small portion of our ignorance, while moral or metaphysical philosophy may expose it further. The observation of human blindness and weakness is the result of all philosophy.
The Role of Experience
Even after experiencing cause-and-effect operations, our conclusions are not founded on reasoning or understanding. This solution requires defense. We agree that there is no known connection between sensible qualities and hidden powers. The mind forms conclusions based on constant and regular conjunction. Past experience provides direct information about specific objects, but extending this experience to future or similar objects is problematic.
Two Distinct Propositions
- Proposition 1: I have found that this object has always had this effect.
- Proposition 2: I foresee that similar objects will have similar effects.
These propositions are not the same, and inferring one from the other requires justification. The connection between them is not intuitive.
Types of Arguments
Arguments are either:
- Demonstrative: Concerning relations of ideas.
- Moral: Concerning matters of fact and existence.
In this case, there are no demonstrative arguments. It is not contradictory to imagine the course of nature changing, with similar objects having different effects.
The Problem of Induction
All arguments about existence are based on cause and effect, derived from experience, and assume the future will resemble the past. Attempting to prove this assumption with probable arguments is circular. Therefore, no argument from experience can prove the resemblance of the past with the future, as all such arguments presuppose it. Even if nature has been regular so far, this does not guarantee its future regularity. The nature of bodies and their effects can change without altering their sensible qualities. There is no logical process to assure us against this possibility.
Skepticism and Inquiry
While we may act as if the future will resemble the past, as philosophers, we must question the basis of this inference. No reading or research has solved this problem. The best we can do is present the difficulty to the public, acknowledging our ignorance without increasing our supposed knowledge.