Introduction
Skepticism, as a philosophical relationship, subjects to doubt the possibility to obtain any kind of knowledge. One of the most extraordinary thoughts about skepticism was formulated by David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, historian and an economist. This paper analyzes some of Hume’s arguments of skepticism regarding the unobserved, along with addressing some of philosophical concepts about science and human understanding.
A Priori knowledge
A priori – is a philosophical term that has an important meaning in the cognitive theory, especially in Kant’s philosophy. This term could be defined as the knowledge that was obtained independently of the experience initially inherent to consciousness. As an opposite of this term, a posteriori is the knowledge that is based on the experience.
In forming the difference of these two terms, a priori knowledge can be represented as the proposed and nonnegotiable truth, or the knowledge that is based on instincts where it could be said that stepping from a cliff would result in falling of a person, is a priori, whereas stepping from a cliff would result in the person to be killed, is a posteriori knowledge. According to Hume, the relation of cause and effect is entirely based on experience and thus can be considered a posteriori.
Relations among Ideas and Matters of Facts
Based on Hume, the objects that can be subjects of observation and analysis can be divided into two groups based on their relations to ideas or facts. Propositions of relations of ideas are related only to the matter of thinking and logical observation, whereas the propositions of relations of facts are based on the relations of cause and effect, which can be as a posteriori knowledge based on experience.
In giving examples of those two connections, it should be noted the similarity to the concepts of a prioiri and a posteriori.
Sciences such as mathematics and physic are based on finding the relations between the objects, along with economics where the possible cause of the objects can be demonstrated, e.g. equation of difference of squares or the area of a rectangular.
Another example based on Hume the relations of facts that come from experience, thus the results cannot be a priori, and laws of physics for example are concluded through experiments. According to Hume, neither of these relations can lead to knowing or predicting a future outcome. Relations based on demonstration alone cannot establish the uniformity of the nature, as in scientific laws and principles.
The cause and effect relations cannot do that either, and the best result that can come up, is sort of conditional truth, if some particular predictions are true then particular conclusions follow. Thus, nothing in the world can be established with confidence.
Giving an example of an event which we know about its future outcome, such as finding the time of filling a tank with water of certain velocity, we are assuming the results based on assumptions of previous experiments, that “held up to the present”. However, observations cannot result in the discovery any factor that can link the velocity and the time after which the tank will be filled.
Accordingly, the future outcome is based merely in the psychological confidence that a certain cause should be followed by a certain effect.
Uniformity principle
The uniformity principle can be considered as a set of axioms that postulates that the universe is controlled by laws, the future is similar to the past and what happened once would happen again if the same conditions are recreated.
This principle if translated to cause-effect relation can be interpreted as the cause-effect relations are the same throughout the time, and this generalization is based on previous generalizations, where even the most vague law of nature was discovered by itself, and the most evident became generally accepted, before they was talked about. Every accepted fact, confirms that each event is related to some law, and for each event there is a combination of objects and other events.
In relating this concept to the Hume’s previous concept of relation of facts, it can be said that the Uniformity principle is true until a refutation is made to one of the generalized laws that will confirm Hume’s skepticism.
In that sense if taking an example of the shape of the earth and its circle, if the previous assumption, although not scientific, was taken in consideration and became generally accepted, the people would take the assumptions of the others to justify future assumptions.
In the case of the earth, if the law of the earth circling around the sun was not generalized, further false assumptions would have been made only based on the psychological fact that it previously was true. Then, saying that the future is like the past is wrong, as a single regularity can reject the uniformity principle
Future is known As Hume rejected any reasoning in making future propositions, he states that the uniformity principle if is to be true it is based on some unknown factor that pushes forward the forces of universe, and this force is not subject to reasoning.
Thus, the belief in the uniformity principle is based on custom rather than reasoning. These customs are the basis for stating the facts to be a priori in establishing future propositions. In that sense stating that something is a priori without the experience is a matter of custom and a habit..
The habit plays a major role making associations, hearing a familiar word, or a name we relive in our memory the habit which is associated with the same name or word. In the matter of science, it could be said the facts that are taken a priori is just the best taken evidences.
Conclusion
In general, the arguments of the skeptics are reasonable at some points, where the scientific approach cannot be taken to solve all the problems, despite the fact that scientific confirmation had been devoted to by many scientist a great deal of attention. The scientific approach should not be taken as a prediction, rather than the logical outcome which held only to “the present”.
Stating that everything is subject to doubts, is also a controversial statement, as without going into philosophical argues, the people have to have something to believe, which is based on certain pattern, rather than on a possibility. In that matter having object a priori is essential.