Hume on induction and custom (Enquiry IV–V)
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748)
Why we expect the future to resemble the past, and why, Hume argues, no reasoning can show that it will: the expectation is the work of custom.
Why it matters
Every morning you expect the floor to hold your weight, the kettle to boil, the bread to nourish. Hume asks what entitles you to the expectation, and his answer is one of the most famous negative results in modern philosophy: nothing that could be called reasoning.
The argument runs in two steps. First, the division the first passage sets out: whatever we know is either a relation of ideas, certain because its denial is a contradiction, or a matter of fact, which could always have been otherwise. That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no contradiction, so no demonstration can show that it will. Second, the passage about the bread: experience tells us only about the cases we have met. To extend it to the cases we have not met, we need a premise that the future will resemble the past, and that premise is itself a matter of fact, so any argument from experience for it assumes what it was meant to prove.
What Hume offers instead is a description. We expect the one event on seeing the other because repetition has formed a habit in us, and custom, he says, is the great guide of human life. It is easy to read this as scepticism about science. I read it rather as an account of what our confidence in the regularities of nature consists in, and of why it does not need the kind of proof philosophers had wanted for it. Whether an expectation formed by habit can still be knowledge is the question that reliabilists, among others, have taken up: on their view what matters is whether the habit is a good one, not whether we can prove that it is.
The section repays slow reading alongside Section X on miracles, where the same principles are turned on testimony, and the epistemology guide sets both in the wider debate.
Relations of ideas and matters of fact
Enquiry, Section IV, Part I, §§20–21
All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation which is either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation between these figures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would for ever retain their certainty and evidence.
21. Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so conformable to reality. That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be distinctly conceived by the mind.
The bread that nourished me
Enquiry, Section IV, Part II, §29
It must certainly be allowed, that nature has kept us at a great distance from all her secrets, and has afforded us only the knowledge of a few superficial qualities of objects; while she conceals from us those powers and principles on which the influence of those objects entirely depends. Our senses inform us of the colour, weight, and consistence of bread; but neither sense nor reason can ever inform us of those qualities which fit it for the nourishment and support of a human body. Sight or feeling conveys an idea of the actual motion of bodies; but as to that wonderful force or power, which would carry on a moving body for ever in a continued change of place, and which bodies never lose but by communicating it to others; of this we cannot form the most distant conception. But notwithstanding this ignorance of natural powers and principles, we always presume, when we see like sensible qualities, that they have like secret powers, and expect that effects, similar to those which we have experienced, will follow from them. If a body of like colour and consistence with that bread, which we have formerly eat, be presented to us, we make no scruple of repeating the experiment, and foresee, with certainty, like nourishment and support. Now this is a process of the mind or thought, of which I would willingly know the foundation. It is allowed on all hands that there is no known connexion between the sensible qualities and the secret powers; and consequently, that the mind is not led to form such a conclusion concerning their constant and regular conjunction, by anything which it knows of their nature. As to past Experience, it can be allowed to give direct and certain information of those precise objects only, and that precise period of time, which fell under its cognizance: but why this experience should be extended to future times, and to other objects, which for aught we know, may be only in appearance similar; this is the main question on which I would insist. The bread, which I formerly eat, nourished me; that is, a body of such sensible qualities was, at that time, endued with such secret powers: but does it follow, that other bread must also nourish me at another time, and that like sensible qualities must always be attended with like secret powers? The consequence seems nowise necessary. At least, it must be acknowledged that there is here a consequence drawn by the mind; that there is a certain step taken; a process of thought, and an inference, which wants to be explained. These two propositions are far from being the same, I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect, and I foresee, that other objects, which are, in appearance, similar, will be attended with similar effects. I shall allow, if you please, that the one proposition may justly be inferred from the other: I know, in fact, that it always is inferred. But if you insist that the inference is made by a chain of reasoning, I desire you to produce that reasoning. The connexion between these propositions is not intuitive. There is required a medium, which may enable the mind to draw such an inference, if indeed it be drawn by reasoning and argument. What that medium is, I must confess, passes my comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it, who assert that it really exists, and is the origin of all our conclusions concerning matter of fact.
Custom or habit
Enquiry, Section V, Part I, §36
This principle is Custom or Habit. For wherever the repetition of any particular act or operation produces a propensity to renew the same act or operation, without being impelled by any reasoning or process of the understanding, we always say, that this propensity is the effect of Custom. By employing that word, we pretend not to have given the ultimate reason of such a propensity. We only point out a principle of human nature, which is universally acknowledged, and which is well known by its effects. Perhaps we can push our enquiries no farther, or pretend to give the cause of this cause; but must rest contented with it as the ultimate principle, which we can assign, of all our conclusions from experience. It is sufficient satisfaction, that we can go so far, without repining at the narrowness of our faculties because they will carry us no farther. And it is certain we here advance a very intelligible proposition at least, if not a true one, when we assert that, after the constant conjunction of two objects--heat and flame, for instance, weight and solidity--we are determined by custom alone to expect the one from the appearance of the other.
Custom, the great guide of human life
Enquiry, Section V, Part I, §36 (end)
Custom, then, is the great guide of human life. It is that principle alone which renders our experience useful to us, and makes us expect, for the future, a similar train of events with those which have appeared in the past.
Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. We should never know how to adjust means to ends, or to employ our natural powers in the production of any effect. There would be an end at once of all action, as well as of the chief part of speculation.
Questions for discussion
- Hume says the step from 'such an object has always been attended with such an effect' to 'similar objects will be attended with similar effects' needs a 'medium'. What could that medium be, and why does he think every candidate fails?
- Does calling our expectation a matter of custom make it unreasonable, or does it show that 'reasonable' meant something other than 'proved' all along?
- If no argument can justify induction, what follows for the sciences, which depend on it? Is Hume a sceptic about science, or about a particular philosophy of science?
The text and its source
- Edition
- Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, by David Hume, reprinted from the posthumous edition of 1777, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, second edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), as extracted in Project Gutenberg eBook #9662 (Enquiry only).
- Source
- Project Gutenberg
- Status
- Public domain: Hume's text 1748/1777 (Hume died 1776); the Selby-Bigge edition was published in 1902 and the e-text is public domain. Only Hume's words are used.
- Notes on the text
- Footnote markers (e.g. [6]) are removed from the passages; the footnotes themselves are not reproduced. Paragraph numbers are Selby-Bigge's, as printed in the e-text.
Terms
Cite this page
David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In: Hume on induction and custom (Enquiry IV–V), abhinavsaxena.in library. https://abhinavsaxena.in/library/hume-induction/