Concerns about inductive reasoning lead to the dilemma of causation and required connection. Hume discovered causal relations on the basis of induction. This is a philosophical reasoning in which inferences are drawn based on past events. Hume's perspective on the concept of cause and effect explains how prior observations serve as the foundation for future happenings. This skeptical viewpoint demonstrates that the sequence of events will repeat in the future as they did in the past, creating a sense of generality. The generalization, according to Hume, is nature's regularity. He explained that numerous effects are possible for every cause and do not require empirical information. One has to observe the happenings of the causal relations to discover that induction reasoning holds.
The Problem of Causation and Necessary Connection
Lack of empirical knowledge in Hume’s inductive reason creates a skepticism problem. According to him, previous observations are enough to predict the future events as it is necessary the causal relations in the past will resemble those in the future. Hume affirms that induction assumes a valid connection between the propositions. He reinforced that “other objects which are in appearance similar will be attended with similar effects” (Hume 10). The problem of induction is pledged by the uncertainty of concussions and question the principle derived in making the conclusions. Notably, Hume challenged many philosophers to develop deductive reasoning to explain the validity of connection. One could dispute that it is impossible for one to comprehend the aspect of cause and effect without true knowledge that will explain its validity. Causality connection is a limitation as people will describe the effects of things happening in the world without having a clear understanding of the factors surrounding the situation. Any reasoning has to be supported by knowledge to be justified.
Undeniably, the lack of knowledge in causation and necessary connection creates the problem of skepticism in Hume’s induction thinking. Hence this explains that logic depends on the repeated observations that are critical in making assumption in the future alluding that the occurrences will be similar to those in the past. According to Hume “the supposition that the future resembles the past, is not founded on arguments of any kind, but is derived entirely from habit” (Hume, 7). Therefore, his philosophical thought is invalid as it depends on habit. His thinking raises a crucial philosophical question and alludes to absurdity and mysticism. There are sharp disagreement on how Hume viewed the concept of causality. Hume’s argument can be disapproved as all inferences from the past to the future are illegitimate and does not have any proof. There will be no discoveries if all the reason were to be inductive and based on the past occurrences. People will not be able to understand any power or force under which the cause operates or even a connection with the presumed effect.
Kant’s solution to the problem of Causality
Kant solved the skeptical view of causality and induction in “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.” Kant theory attacks Hume's argument noting that nothing occurs which can be deduced to be a fate of the past and attempted to remove what he termed to be “Humean problem.” He stipulated that the validity of the universal laws of nature have to be grounded on the understanding of constituent of experience. The solution is also found in Kant’s “revolutionary conception of synthetic a priori judgments” (Kant 51). Kant ascertains that Humean problem is more general and extends to all categories of the undertaking. In his book Critique of Pure Reason, he started by formulating the general problem of pure reason. He questioned how cognition is pure from reason and how synthetic priori propositions is possible. According to Kant, the induction reasoning has remained to be a wavering state of uncertainty and subject to contradiction. He mentioned that Hume in his philosophical thought failed to perceive the issue of generality which is a major flaw in his postulations.
Kant presents a discussion of skepticism” versus “dogmatism” in Transcendental Deduction. Under this, Kant presents the need to use deductive reasoning on the concept of cause. He clarifies that effects are associated with different experiences. Kant’s thought mirrors the significance of the “intervening appearance of the Prolegomena” (Kant 19). In his explanation, cause and effect have to be logically grounded, and the relationships of the consequent should be rationally understood according to the rule of identity. For this reason, logical consequent gives and understanding to why causality should be linked to knowledge. Kant's judgment on perception also provides an answer to Hume’s problem. He mentions that “the pure concepts of the understanding are those concepts under which all perceptions must first be subsumed before they can serve as judgments of experience, in which the synthetic unity of perceptions is represented as necessary and universally valid” (Kant 31). Therefore, he suggests that the concept of cause should be subjective and employed empirical knowledge.
Undoubtedly, Kant succeeded in solving the problem of skepticism related to induction reasoning. He accurately provided the meta-scientific machinery in which he explained that individuals could uphold and build knowledge which was not available in Hume’s theosophical thought. Kant showed that there has to be a way knowledge is used in making conclusions which should also confirm be synthetic and a priori. Notably, Kant’s answer to the problem of skepticism is satisfactory and justifiable. It is the empirical knowledge that makes the concept of the understanding and conclusions valid. This also makes it possible for people to have experience as well as solid information that is backed by solid data of the world. The gist of Kant’s theory is anchored on the concepts of empirical knowledge and experiences. Additionally, the concept of “nature of perception” that Kant brings to light in his theory helps in making a distinction between the subjective and objective succession of perception. Remarkably, this provides the key to unlock the challenge of a succession of perception. Subjective perception allows people to identify the direction of what is perceived to be right and incorporate changes. This is contrary to objective perception which follows a given design characterized by patterns of causation.
Conclusion
The problem of casualty created controversial debates on its validity in making future findings. Indeed, Kant was a genius, and he succeeded in solving the challenge of induction. People have to understand reality and knowledge to comprehend the cause and effect of occurrences. In view of this future happenings do not have to depend on repeated observations that were inductively deduced in the past. Deductive logic has to be applied to life experience, and facts have to support any conclusions. Kant’s careful explanation of the idea of causality highlighted the importance of logical reasoning and solved the problem of skepticism.
Works Cited
Hume, David. Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: And Other Writings. Edited by Stephen Buckle. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
