David Hume's Problem Of Induction

David Hume is most notably known for his Problem of Induction. This argument finds that there is no guarantee that the future will resemble the past even though we are lead to believe that it does. We fall under this assumption because there is very rare deviation from this continuity that we perceive. When an event happens contrary to how it would have happened under the principle of the unity of nature, we deem it a miracle. Hume thinks that miracles are farcical in that we cannot trust testimony to acquire knowledge. The problem of induction is well depicted in the billiards example. If one billiard ball is motionless on a table and is acted on by another billiard ball that is in motion, the first billiard ball will move in reaction.

I agree with Hume’s claim that cause and effect cannot be determined by reason, but I also think that the principle of the unity of nature is an acceptable school of thought to rely on. Miracles are defined as violation of the laws of nature. The laws of nature, in which I am including the principle of the unity of nature based on the operational value, dictate against the existence of miracles using any uniform experiences imaginable. Now that isn’t to say that anything that I personally have not witnessed is a miracle. In Hume’s Indian prince example, the occurrence of frost seemed like a miracle because it was contrary to his constant and uniform experience. (Hume, 76) The prince would have a testimony that is believable, as it conforms with other’s experiences of water turning into ice, even though the event seems truly miraculous to him. Testimony alone, in Hume’s view, is not a reasonable enough argument to convince someone into believing that the miracle that is described took place. Hume places the reliability of testimony below the reliability of the sense, which he has taken a skeptical view towards as well. His skepticism extended past causation into religion and miracles. He believes that miracles can happen, as he finds through his problem of induction that the future will not always be like the past. He still thinks that testimonies are usually false, especially those of the religious nature. Even if the testimony is relied constantly by more than one source, it holds some weight to think about what those testifying are talking about and how it usually verifies their own religious belief. Referring back to the Indian prince example, it may be the case that what one witnesses as a miracle may in fact be common occurrence in another person’s