Causation: A Human Creation

There are several differences between correlation and causation. Correlation is if an event happens and is not related to another event and it is a coincidence. This would be if an event happened but it was not connected to another. An example of this would be catching a foul ball at a baseball game. It would be a correlation because you just happened to be in that place where the ball was hit and were able to catch it. Causation on the other hand is a cause and effect. One thing happens because another thing previously happened. An example of this would be if a person drank caffeine late at night, then they would be up all night. Another example of this would be if someone slipped on ice coming out of class.

Like Berkeley David Hume also believed that understanding is rooted to experience. Hume developed the three laws of association: resemblance, contiguity and cause/effect. Resemblance is an object reminds and individual of another object or thing through similarity. Contiguity means experiencing things together. Cause and effect is

Hume rejected lockes theory of experiencing cause. He argued that you do not feel the connection between your mind and arm, and thus don't sense the cause of the muscles contracting to raise your arm. Cause, in Hume's mind, is a synthetic experience used to explain the unobservable things in reality. To help explain he used the billiard ball experiement. Ball A is hit and put into motion towards ball B.When ball A collides with ball B the cause of ball B's movement is not experienced, there is no observable connection between the two. This would mean that there is no way to be certain that everytime Ball A collides with ball B that ball B will move, ball A could just as likely bounce off and begin rolling in a random direction. He believd that there is no way of knowing for certain the outcome of an event without being able to perceive the cause.

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

There is issues with causation though and is questioned whether it is in need of reform.

Hume’s notion of causation is his regularity theory. Hume explains his regularity theory in two ways: (1) “we may define a cause to be an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second” (2) “if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.”

Hume says that for humans finding or thinking of no explanation for the cause and effect could be considered as such unintelligible. Hume explains that we get the knowledge of cause and effect through our experiences. Hume explains more in depth by describing if how something new is introduced to someone they would not have the experience to cover any of the causes and effects of that object because they have no past experience towards that one object. Hume also says that someone is not able to find the effect from just experiencing the cause and as Hume assumes only if you have experienced it all will you know what will happen if the same thing is going to happen you’ll assume or predict what will be the cause and effect. Such as for every day you experience the sun comes up every day you’ll expect it or predict that it will probably come back up tomorrow as it’s been a repeating experience. Hume presumes that people imagine, to discover the causes and effects through reasonings and not experience.which in turn is not what he believes is true. But Hume explains that we would never be able to find the cause of what gunpowder would do with fire through reasoning alone and also could not find the cause or effects of any particular event.

     Hume analyzed the idea of causality by emphasizing the three demands that can be verified through observation. First he argued the aspect of constant conjunction. In this aspect, the cause and effect must be spatially and constantly existent. Secondly, he

One objection to Hume's definition of causality was written by a fellow (omit) named Thomas Reid. His problem with Hume's definition was that it led to absurd conclusions. The example Reid uses is one of night and day. Reid asserts that if one follows Hume's definition of cause, then one can postulate that day is the cause of night, and night is the cause of day, which goes on forever and is circular. Thus, by Reid's account, the definition of cause is absurd, and cannot hold (sp) any value.

Hume also believed in cause and effect. I believe in this because in order for something to happen something needed to cause

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume states, “there is not, in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, any thing which can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion” (Hume, 1993: 41). Hume establishes in section II that all ideas originate from impressions that employ the senses (11). Therefore, in order for there to be an idea of power or “necessary connexion,” there must be impressions of this connection present in single instances of cause and effect; if there are no such impressions, then there cannot be an idea of “necessary connexion” (52). To illustrate his statement, Hume examines four situations:

It is logical to say that things happen for a reason. A ball, kicked by a child in a playground, flies through the air and eventually comes down to the ground. The child has kicked the ball enough times to expect that once the ball reaches its highest point, it will fall. Through experience of kicking the ball and it coming back to the ground, the child will develop expectations of this action. This thought process seems sound, yet a question of certainty arises. Can we be certain that future events will be like past events? Can we be certain that the ball will fall once it has been kicked? This concept was one of David Hume’s most famous philosophical arguments: the Problem of Induction. This paper will outline Hume’s standpoint, as well give criticism for his argument.

If circumstances were to be repeated exactly the same, there could be no other outcome than what is expected. He illustrate that the concepts of necessary connections and causation result only from the observation of constant conjunction, “where similar objects are constantly conjoined together and the mind is determined by custom to infer the one from the appearance of another” (Hume 523). Hume progress about how human actions are necessary with a claim that there is a “great uniformity among all the actions of mankind” (Hume 523). He finds that throughout history, across cultures and across ages, human actions and behaviors remains relatively constant. Therefore, Hume emphasize that similar motives produce similar actions and similar causes produce similar events. Human passions and qualities such as “ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit,” (Hume 523) all which have been created from the beginning of time, are still relevant sources of all the actions and driving source that is still observed among human beings—they all spring from a certain regularity and expectation.

A key part of this quote seeks to explore the relationship between “causation” and “correlation” in

We cannot logically know or prove causation and "matters of fact," as we can know and prove the "relations of ideas" such as mathematics and logic. But we have a natural belief in causation and in many matters of fact.