Explain and evaluate hume’s ideas on causation

Hume and Causality Hume and causality Hume referred causality as “ the cement of universe.” This perspective implied that the universe hold everything together with the presence of forces, power and the necessary connections. The analysis of Hume starts with a difference when it comes to impression and ideas. He perceived impressions to carry a lot of power than ideas which are considered indistinct images of thinking and reasoning. According to Hume, all what is observed does not subject the mind to inward feeling of succession of moving objects. Unless it is impression is idea derived, then all the suspicions are confirmed (Levine, 1989, p. 48). Zubiri’s philosophy concurred with the thought of Hume in that problems faced cannot be solved with the same level of thinking when these problems were created. Hume believes that it is important to go deeper in order to comprehend and examine human intelligence on the same. Apparently, Hume is more concerned when people fail to examine causes adequately in order to perceive the metaphysical conclusions regarding the universe (Demeter, Murphy and Zittel, 2014, p. 324). However, this conclusion may seem skeptical since he does not recognize that functionality is related to the correctness of impression, not its content. Basically, Hume considers causality to play an important role in both in moral building and personal sphere.
Hume has problem with scientific evidence. He asks whether these evidences stretch to the brink to be considered good evidence. According to Hume, there is a need to justify and rationalize on the evidence presented in order to belief about the things of the universe especially when these evidences are unobservable presented (Schmitt, 2014, p. 140). For example, one may have different variety of berries in a basket. After sampling of one type of berries in the basket, of which they have similar taste, then we conclude that all berries in the basket have the same taste.
The arguments in this example are:
1. Some berries from the basket have been observed,
2. All observed barriers have the same flavor,
3. Therefore all the berries in the basket have the same flavor.
The first case is an inductive generalization in the perspective that all the members of a particular class are similar through observation. Two, there is an inductive prediction where the idea of same flavor of the berries is based on the assumption of the preceding observation, and three, there is casual generalization where Hume assumes that there is no way of determining the unseen power of some things. The significant of this problem to science is that, science tends to belief that whatever is happening in the universe is based on induction. The objection thus is science methods are just but mere superstitions (Levine, 1989, p. 54).
Newton responded positively to the Hume ideology by adding a clear principle of unlimited inductive generalization (Schmitt, 2014, p. 138). According to Newton, qualities of bodies can be identified through experiments, and therefore the outcomes of the experiments are regarded as universal qualities of that particular aspect. Newton stated that these are idle notions that should not be invented irresponsibly towards experimental evidence, departing from the analogy of nature. Basically, Newton’s good response towards Hume ideology is that nature is often simple and ever in agreement with itself (Demeter, Murphy and Zittel, 2014, p. 325).
Demeter, T., Murphy, K. and Zittel, C. (2014). Conflicting Values of Inquiry: Ideologies of Epistemology in Early Modern Europe. Leiden: BRILL, pp. 324-328.
Levine, M. (1989). Hume and the Problem of Miracles: A Solution. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 48-59.
Schmitt, F. (2014). Humes epistemology in the Treatise. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 134-145.