218 1;orl'l' l(ll·. ll l\'11.111'1.M
IIINIZ
been no c,ust· of ch ,111gc in C. I', F, c; , d( . It might
be said abo, without entering into any further
particularity, that plact· is 1ha1 which is the same
in different nH>1nc111s to diff,•rt·nt cxis1t·n1 thing,
when their relations of co,·xistcncc with certain
other existents which arc supposed 10 continue
fixed from one of those moments to lht' other
agree entircl/ together. Ar,d fixed !'xistc11ts arc
those in which 1hcre has been no muse of any
change o:- the order of their coexistence with
others, or (which is the same thing) in which there
has been no motion . L1stly, sp11cc is that which
results from places taken together. And here it may
not be amiss to consider the difference between
place and the relation of situation which is in
the body that fills up the place. For the place of
A and B is the ~amc, whereas the relation of A to
fixed bodies is not precisely and individually the
same as the relation which H (that comes into its
place) will have to the ~amc fixrd bodies; but these
relation:; agree oi.ly. Fnr two different :.ubjects, as
A and lJ, c.mnot have pm:isely the same indiv•dual
affection, it being impossible that the same indi-
vidual accident should be in two subjects or pass
from one subject to another. But the mind, not
contented with an agreement, looks for ;111 _ident-
ity, for somethirig that should be truly the same,
and conceives it as being extrinsic to the subject;
and this is what we here call place and space.
But this can only be "" ideal thing, containing
a certain order, wherein the mind conceives the
application of relations. In like manner as the mind
can fancy to itsrlf an order made up of genea-
logical lines whose bigness would consist only in
the number of generations wherein every person
would have his place; and if to this one should
add the fiction of a metempsychosis and bring
in the same human souls again, the persons in
those lines might change place; he who was a
father or a grandfather might become a son or a
grandson, etc. And yet those genealogical places,
lines, and spac~s. though they should express
real truths, would only be ideal thing.,. I shall allege
another example to show how the mind uses, upon
L
1. 1'.
occ,,sion of accidents which arc in subjects, to fan
to itself something answerable to _those acci! ' 3.7
ents out of the subjects. The ratio or proportion :
between two Imes I. and M may be conceived thr~ ·
sever.ii ways: as a ratio of the greater L to 1he lesser '. The Problen1 of Induction
M, as a ratio of 1he lesser M to the grea1er L, and,
lastly, as something abstracted from bo1h, that •.
is, the ratio between L and M wi!hout consider-
ing which is the antecedent or which the con.
sequent, which the subject and which the object, David Hume
And thus it is that proportions arc considered in
music. In the first way of considering them, L the
greater, in the second, M the lesser, is the subject
of that accident which philosophers call "relation.~
But which of them will be the subject in ~
third way of considering them? It cannot be said
that both of them, Land M together, are the sui):
ject of such an accident; for, if so, we should have
an accident in two subjects, with one leg in on
and the· other in the other, which is contrary t? David Hume (1711-1776) was a brilliant historian a nd philosopher
the notion of accidents. Therefore we must 5af. whose crisp formulation of skeptical problems sci the agenda for sub-
tha• this relation, in th:s third way of consider- sequent philosophica! discussion. Ir. this selection from A11 £11q11irr
ing it, is indeed out of the s11bjects; hut, bcin Concerni11g Human U11dersta::di,;g ( i i'4C), rlume dividrs all of
neither a substance nor an accident, it must be human knowledge into two parts, relatio11s of ideas and 11111/las ofJitct.
mere ideal thing, the consideratior. of which .· and argues that i'lductive extrapolations of our experience cannot be
nevertheless useful. To conclude, I have here done justified by appeal to either. To reason inductively is to reason in a
much like Euclid, who, not being able to make customary or habitual way, but this has, Hume claims, no rational
his readers well understand what ratio is absolu or normative force. This skepticism has profound implicatio , 1s for
in the sense of geometricians, defines what · the rationality of science. Hume's challenge still occupies philosophers
the same ratios. Thus, in like manner, i:i ,.,,d of science today.
to explain what pince is, I have been content t
define what is the same pince. Lastly, I observe tha
the trnces of movable bodies, which they leave
sometimes upon the immov~ble ones on whi .·
they arc moved, have given men occasion to fo Sceptical Doubts ''""" till!CSJi, ·c is"''""' to tli, /111l(vf 1/11r1y. t'-' JVt'SSc'S
in their imagination such an idea, as if soni Concerning the Operations of the a rdation hc..·twc..·c..·n tb.·sc numh<..'r;'\. Prol',,,ititlll';
trace did still remain, even when there is noth· Understanding of this kind arc discow rablc by 1h,· cine opcr.1 -
ing ui.movcd . llut this is a mere ideal thing a~· I)' tion of thought , without depr nd,·n, ,· o n ,--t,.11 1.<
iJnports only that if tl,ere was a11y 1111111oved tl11n' an)'Whcre cxis1cn1 in 1he universe. Tho u!!h 1hcr,·
tl1crc, tl,e twee 111igl1t be marked 0111 11po11 it. And r....·vcr wen: a cin: ll• nr 1riangk in n,Hun.:. th 1.·
'tis this analogy which makes men fancy plac~ objects of hu111.rn reaso n or i1H1uiry truths dcmon~u-.1h.'ll hr Et11.: lid \\'t1Uld l°1lf l ' \ '1.' r
traces, and spaces, though these things cons . ay naturally be divided into two kinds, 10 wil , retain their ccrt.,int)' and eviJ,·nc,· .
only in the truth of relations and not at all in an ~lations of Ideas, and Matters of Fcirt. Of the Matters of foci. ,,·hich art' 1he S<'<"o nd oh1,•(I;
absolute reality. · . t kind arc the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, of hum an rc..·as,rn, .,rl' nol ,,s,c r1,1 in<..·d in th<..·
d Arithmetic, and, in short, cvcq' affirmation same manner; nor is our c.:vidcn i:l' of 111<..·ir truth .
hich is either intuitively or demon stratively howewr great, ur a likt· n.Hur,· wi1h 1h,· f<>rt' •
rtain. That tire sq,wn· of tire lrypotl1<·11mc is eq1111I going. The contrary of ewr)' m;Hlcr of fJt'I i,
th_e square of tire two siti,'S, is a proposition which still possible, b,·causc ii c;111 never impl r ., ,on -
rcsses a relation between these figures. Tlwt tradiction , and is conce iv,·d b)' 1hc mind "·i1h 1hc
. Tht Phil0Jopl1irnl \V(lrb of LJ,wid Hume, Vol . ◄ (Lonc.lun : Linle, Brown Jrhl Co., l~:"l~ t. 1•1• _,o- -t r-
 120 llA \ ' 1 ll II UM E
same focilil)' ;111d dislinclncss, as if ever so con-
formahlc 10 rc;1li1y. T/1111 1/1<' 51111 n•ill 11or rise
1,>-111orrtl11', is no il·s.~ in1dligihlc a proposilion, and
implies no more con1radiC1iun, 1h,m lhc aflirma-
lion, that it will risr. We should in v;lin, lhcreforc,
allempl 10 demonslralc ils falsehood . Were ii
dcmons1ra1ivdy false, ii would implr a con1ra-
lI dic1ion, and could never h<· dislin(lly concei·.-cd
by 1he mind .
II may lherefore he a suhiccl worthy of curios-
ity, 10 inquire whal is lhc nalure of 1ha1 evidence,
which assures us of an)' r,·al existence and mat-
ter of fac1, bcrond 1he presenl teslimony of our
senses, or 1he records of our memory. This parl 1
of philosophr, ii is obs,·rv;1ble, has been lillle f
cuhiva1cd, eilhcr hr the ancients or moderns; '.
and 1hcrl'fore our douh1s ;111d errors, in the pro-
·1 scculion of so impor1an1 ;111 inquiry, may be
the more cxcus.,hlc, while we march 1hrough such
I dinicuh pa1hs wilhoul any guide or direc1ion . Thcr
may even prove useful , hr exci1\ng curiosi1r,
.,nd -:leslr'.lying 1ha1 implicil fai1h dnd security
which is lhe bane of all reasoning anc free
inquiry. The discovery of defects in lhe common
philosoph)', if any such lhc,·e be, will nol, I pre-
sume, he a discouragemenl, bul ralher an incite-
ment, as is usual , In allcmpl something more
full and satisfactory 1han h;1s ye1 been proposed
to the public.
All reasoning.\ concerning mailer of foci seem
lo be founded on the rdation of Cause a11d
Effect. Uy means of Iha: rck11ion alone we can
go beyond 1he evidence of our memory and
senses. If you were lo ask a man wh)• he believes
any mailer of fact which is absenl , for inslance,
iha1 his friend is in the counlry or in France, he
would give you a reason, and this reason would
be some olher f~cl : dS a lellcr received from him,
or the knowledge of his former resolulions and
promises. A man, finding a wa1ch or any other
machine in a desen island, would conclude lhal
1here had once heen men in thal island . All
our reasoning.\ concerning foci arc of 1he same
nalure. And here il is com1a111ly supposed, lhal
1hcrc is a connection hclw,·<·n 1hc prescnl foci and
that which is infcrrct.l from il. Were there noth -
ing lo hind them together, the inference would
be entirely precarious. The hearing of an articu -
lale voice and ralional discourse in lhc dark
assurrs us of the presence of some person: why?
because 1hcsc are the effects of 1he human make
and fohric, and closely conneclcd wi1h ii. If
analomizc all lhe other reasonings of this naiu:e
we shall find, 1ha1 1hey nre founded on 1hc rel :
tion of cause and effecl, and that lhis rcla1ion ~
. her near or remolc, d'1rect or collateral. Heatu
cit
a :1d light are collateral cffecls of lire, and the one .
effccl may justly be inferred from lhc olher.
If we would salisfy ourselves, lhereforc, con.
cerning the nature o r thal ~vidence which assures
us of matters of fac1, we musl inquire how we
arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect
I shall venture to affirm, as a_general proposi~
lion which admils of r:o exception, tha1 the
knowledge of thi~ rdation is not, in any inslancc,·
attained by reasonings a priori; but arises entirely
from experience, when we find, that any par.!
1icular objects are constantly conjoined wi1h each'
other. Let an object lie presented to a man of
ever so strong natural reason and abili1icsi i(
that objecl be enlirely r.ew to him, he will not
be able, by 1hc mosl accurate examination of its
sensible qualities, lo discover any of it~ causes
or effecls. Adam, though his rational faculties be
supposed, at 1hc very first, entirP-ly perfect, coul
not have inferred from the fluiditv and Iran ·
parency of water, thal it w0uld suff~cate him; or
from 1he light and warmth of lire that it would
consume him. No object ever d_iscovers, by th
qualities which appear to the senses, either the
cau~:5 w!;:~h produced it, or the effects which will
arise from ii; nor can our reason, unassisted br.
experience, ever draw any inference conceminf
real cxislence and matter of fact.
This proposition, t/rat causes and c/Jcds art
discoverable, 1101 by reason but by ocperiencc, will
readily be admilled wilh regard to such objectS
as we remember to have once been ahoge1hcr
unknown to us; since we must be conscious of
the ullcr inabilily which we then lay under of
foretelling whal would arise from them. Prescn
two smoolh pieces of marble 10 a man who has
no 1inc1urc of natural philosophy; he will ncvc
discover 1ha1 lhcy will adhere together in sucli
a manner as 10 require grcal force 10 separalc 1hc
in a direCI lin~. while 1hcy make so small a rcsisl·
ancc 10 a lateral pressure. Such events as bear
lillle analogy lo the common course of nature;
arc also readily confessed lo be known only b
experience; nor docs any man imagine thal th
explosion of gunpowder, or lhe allrac1ion of
loadslonc, could ever be discovered by argumcn
TIii ~ l'l<lllll . l ,\ \
· riori . In like manner, when an cffccl is ,up -
• Pscd to dcpcn d upon an 1n1rica1c
. ' mac h'may or
~rel siruc1urc of p;irls, we make no diflirnll)' in
:«ribuling all our knowledge of it lo experience .
. Who will asscrl 1ha1 he can gi1·c 1hc ult im;11,·
' reason, why milk or brca~ is prop:r n_o urish-
,ncnl for a man, not for a hon or a 11gcr! .
But the same lruth may nol appear al lirsl s1gh1
· 10 have 1he same evidence wilh rcgar'.' lo events,
which have become familiar lo us from our lirsl
1 ,ppearance in the world, which bear a clo~e ana-
logy 10· the whole course of nature, a,1d wh1Ch are
supposed _10 depend on lhc simp 1c qualities of
1
· objccls, w11houl any secret structufe of parls. We
,re apt to imJgine, 1ha1 we could discol',r :hese
effccls by the mere operation of our reason with -
. out experience. We fancy, thal were we brought
on a sudden inlo this world, we could at first have
inferred thal one billiard-ball would commun-
icale molion lo another upon impulse; ant.l 1ha1
we needed not 10 have wailed for 1:,e event, in_
order to pronounce wilh cer:ainty concerni11g il.
Such is the influence of ci.:stom, 1ha1 where ii is
.strnngcst, it not only covers our natural ignoranc~.
but even conceals ilself, and seems nol 10 take
·place, merely because ii is found in the highest
degree.
. _But to convince us, 1hat'all the laws of na1urc,
·ind all the opcralions of bodies, withoul excep -
tion, are known only by experience, the follow-
ing reflections may :,crhaps suflicc. Were an)'
objecl prcsenlcd lo us, and were we required lo
· pronounce concerning 1he effect which will rcwlt
· from ii, wi1hou1 consulting past observation;
afttr whal mar,ner, I beseech you, mu;! the
_mind proceed in 1his 0pera1ion? II must in ve nt
or imagine some cvenl which it' ascribes 10 the
. objecl as its effect; and i• is pl:•in thal this invcn-
_lion mus1 be cnlirdy arbitrary. The mind ca n ncwr
r~\sibly find lhe effect in 1he supp.- ,ed ·" ' .c,
by the mosl accurate scrulin)' and exa min alion .
For lhc cffccl is tolally different fr o m the c.ws,·.
and conscqucnlly can never be disco"ercd in ii.
Motion in lhe secont.l billia rd -ba ll is a qu ilc dis •
liner eve111 from moti o n in the lirsl; nor is 1her.·
anything in lhc one lo suggest 1hc smallest hi111
of the olhcr. A slonc o r piece of metal raised into
~e air, and lcfl w:'. houl any suppo rl, immediately
falls: bu1 to consider the mailer a pri o ri, is there
ything we d iscover in 1his situation whkh can
gel the idea of a downward, rath~r than an
01 1:-.:fll : l . l lU :,,..
c~I
upw,1rd. or ,111~· 1nlil·r 11101ion. in tli1..· ,t1111l· or
metal ?
,\nd as rhc lirst i111,tgi11.11io11 nr 111\·l·n 1iun ol
i1 ~ia r1icula r l'l.fl·i:1, in .ill natu r.11 uprr.t1i1111,, i,
ilrhitr<H)', \\'ht:rl' \\'l' 0111~ult nPt t·xp..:ril'JH:r; ;-.(l mu ~t
wr al~o c~term 1hr suppn~cd til' or ..:11 1111l.'c tin11
hctwccn 1hc cau se and l'ffccl, "'hich hind , 1hrn1
IO[:Clhcr, and r,•nders il impos,i hl<·, il• ,11 an,·
other effect could rcsuh fn,111 lhe •.•p,·r.lli ll n ,;f
1ha1 cause. When I sec, for instanc,•, a 1,illi.irJ -ha ll
moving in a s1raigh1 line towards anu1hcr: cl'cn
suppose molion in the second ball should lw
accident be suggested lo me, as the result of their
conlaCI or impulse; ma)' I nol conceive that a
hundred different events might as well follow
from that cause' May not hoth these hall s remain
al absolute rest' May not rhc lirsl hall relurn in
a straight line, or leap off fro m rhc second in
any line nr direClion' All lhcsc supposi1 inn s arc
consistent ant.l conccivabk. \'/hi· lhcn sh11 ult.l 1w
give the preference to one, which is no more
co11si ,1cn1 or co nceivable 1han the rest' All ou r
reasoni ngs a priori will never be able 10 shnw us
any foundation for 1his preference.
In a word, then, every effect is a distinct c1·cn1
from its CJuse. It co uld not, therefore. ti,· dis -
covered in the cause: and rh,· tirsr i11\'en1io11
or conception of ir, a priori, mu st be entird y
arbitrary. And even ,1ftcr il is SUf:gCS!cd , th e
conj unctio n of it with 1he ca us,· mu.<! .,pp,·ar
equally arbitrary; since thac arc alw,1rs 111 ,1111
other effects, which, 10 reason, mu st seem full )' .,s
co nsistent and ndtural. In yain . thacforc·, sh.,11ld
we prctl' lld lo d1.:tcrn1inc any singk l' \ ' l.'llf. or
infer any ca use or effect , 1,·i1hou1 1hc a,s is1an c,·
of ·.1bserva1 io n and c,pcri,·ncc. ·
Hence \\'C 1nar Jiscuvcr th e fl',t!-,l) O , whr 110
philosol'hcr, who is ralin n.1 1 .,nd 11,ndcs1, h."
l' vcr prl·lcnd ...·d to .b.si gn th l' u ll i111 .1h: ... .1u,1..· of
,Ill )' n.1tur.1I qprr,llin11, o r tu , h,1,,· di , 1111 ..: 1h· 11 11.·
. 11,.. ti o n uf th.ll po,,·l.· r, ,,·hid1 produ,:r:-. .111 r :-- ,n~k·
cff1..·, 1 in the uni"l."TS1..' . It is (l1nfcs,,;1.·d , th.11 1hr
u11nost c.'.'ffort o( hu1P:1n r1..·.1!-un is, 111 rL·du,:l' 1h1.·
pr i1Kiph.·s prud l.l\:t i\'l.' ll f 11.1tur.1l 1'hrn1nn1..·n.1 h l
.1 ,;r..:-.11c.· r :--i mpl il..'il y, ;1 1H.I lo h : ,nl\•l ' 1hc 111 .111 ~·
p.1rticular effec ts into ., f1..·v.• ~1..·1wr.1I 1.·,111,r,. t)\
nu.·ans ,1f n:a$nninF,s from .111.1h1~y. 1.':\f't.'ril'1h .· ..• • ,l lhl
observa tio n. Uut as 10 lhe ca us,·s ol 1hc,c• ~,·na.,I
m uses, we should in ,·ai n allell11'l their d i..:n,··
cry; nor ~hall we c1·cr he atik 1,, s.11 i., f)' nur,dws
by any particular cxplica1ion " f them. Th ese
 222 11 ,\ \' l ll II lf ME
ultimate springs and principles arc totalli• shut
up from human curiosity and inquiry. El.1s1icity,
gravity, cohesion of parts, communication of
motion by impulse; these arc prohahly the ultim -
ate causes and principles which we shall ever
discover in nature; and we may esteem ourselves
\ sufhcicntly happy, if. by accurate enquiry and
I, r :asoning, we can trace up the particular phe-
I· nomena to, or near to, these general ·principles.
The most perfect philosophy uf the natural kind
!I only stav~ olT our ignorance a little longer. as per-
haps the most perfect philosophy of the moral or
:nctaphysical kind serves onlr to discover larger
portions of it. Thus the observatio·n of human
blindness and weakness is the result of all philo-
sophy, and meets us, at every turn, in :;pile of our
endeavors to elude or avoid it.
Nor is geometry, when taken into the assistance
of ~atural philosophy. e•.'er able to remedy this
defect, or lead us into the knowledge of ultimate
causes, by ~11 1:1at accuracy of reasoning for which
it is so justly celebrated. Every part of mixed
mathematics proceeds upon the suppo:.ition,
th"t certain laws are established by nature in her
operations; and abstract reasonings arc employed,
either lo assis: .::xperience in the discovery of these
laws, or to determine their innuence in particu-
lar instances, where it depends upon any precise
degree of distance and quantity. Thus, it is a
law of motion, discovered by experience, that t~e
moment or io•ce of any body in motion, is in
the compound 'ratio or proportion of its solid
contents and its velocity; and consequently. that
a small force may remove the greatest obstacle,
or raise the greatest weight, ifby any cuntrivancc
or machinery, we c.in increase the velocity of
that force, so as to make it an overmatch for its
antagonist. Geometry assists us in the application
of this law, by giving us the just dimensions of
all the parts and figures which can enter into
any species of machine; but still the discovery of
the law itself is owing merely to experience; and
all the abstract reasonings in the world could
never lead us one step towards the knowledge of
it. When we reason a priori, and consider merely
any object or cau.c, as it appears to .the mind, inde-
pendent of all observation, it never could suggest
to us the notion of any distinct object, such as
· its effect; much less show w the inseparable
and inviolable connection between them. A man
must be very sagacious who could discover by
~•·asoning, th~t crystal _is the c~fcct _of heat, and ·
ice of cold, without being previously acquainted
with the operation of these qualities.
/'art II
Uut we have not yet allained any tolerahle satisfoc • .
t!1111 with ~cgard _to '.he q~cstion first proposed. :
Each solullon mil gives me to a new questi
as difficult as the foregoing, and leads us on ~n
further inquiries. When it is ask~d, W/1n1 is th: ·
11nt11rc of nil 011r renso11i11gs CClllCemi11g mnrtr• 0i
fact? the proper answer seems to be, That th')'
arc founded on the relation of cause and effect
When again it is asked, WIJnt is tl,c fo1111dation·
of nll 011r_rcns~11i11gs n11d c,.111<_l11sio11s co11ceming
rl,111 relat1011? 11 may be replied in one word
Ex PERI ENCE. But if WC still carr)' 011 our siftin~ .
humor, and as!:, Wl,nt is t/Jc fo1111dntio11 o( all .
co11clusioris from experience? this implies a ·new
question, which may be of more difficult solution
and explication. Philosophers that give them-,
selves airs of .;uperior wis~vm ;;nJ sufficiency,:
have a hard task when they encounter persons:
of inquisitive d;spositions, who push them froni .
every corner to which they retreat, and who "
are sure at last to bring them to some dangerous·
dilemma. The best expedient to prevent this con-;
fusion, is to be modest in our pretensions, and ·
even to discover the difficulty ourselves before it,
is objected to us. By this means we may make a_'
kind of merit of our very ignorance.,
I shall content ·myself in this section with an
easy task, and shall pretend only to give a negat-
ive answer to the question here proposed. I say '
then, that even after we have experience of the '.
operations of cause and effect, our conclusions '.
from that experience arc 1101 founded on reason- ,'
ing, or any process of the understanding. This ··
answer we must cndcavnr both to explain and :
10 defend.
It must certainly be allowed, that _nature has
kept us al 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 prin'ciples on which
the innuence of those objects entirely depends. Our
senses inform us of the color, weight, and con· .
sistcnce of bread; but neither sense .. or reason can
ever inform us of those qualities which fit it for.
the nourishment and support of a human body:_
1'111: l'UllUl . l·. ~1
. ht or feeling cmwe)'s an idea of the aClual
5'6 - n of bodies, hut as to th;II wonderful force
mo110wcr which would carry on a mov111i: •
hodr
or po
(or ever in a continued change of place, ~nd
which bodies ncv•·~ lose hut hy commun1cat111g
. 10 others; of this we c;1111mt form the mos!
11 ·
distant concept 1011. 11111 IIO(WJI. IlSl;m1 r'111g I I\IS
. (0111prl'ht.·11s1011: ,111d i1 j:,, inlumht.•fll 1111 1hn:-. c.· IP
. orancc of natural powers and prt11c1plcs, 1w
ign
always presume when we sec l'k 1·c sens,'bl c qua 1ti· ·
its, tha: 1hcy h;tV<' like secret 1~mvcrs, and expc~l
that effects similar lo those whJCh we have expert ·
need will follow from them. If .1 body of like
:olor and consistence with thal hrcad which we
/ have formerly cat, be present,·d 10 11,, we make
no scruple of repeating the experiment , and fore-
~ sec, with ccrt~inty, like nourishment and support.
, Now, this is a process of the mind or thought, of
which I would willing!)' know the foundation .
It is allowed on all hands that there is no known
· connection between the sensible qualities · and
the secret powers; and consequ~nlly. 1!1:11 the mind
; is nol led to fnrin sui.:11 a i.:ondu~ion c,,ni.:l·rnin~
· their const;;nl ;,nd regul .n conjunction, hr any ·
thin11 which it knows of their nature. As lo 1•as1
Expcrie11cc, it can be allowed lo give dirt'<'t and
urtai11 information of those precise objects only,
and that precise period of time which fell under
its cognizance: hut wh)' this cxperi<'IIC<' should
be extended to future limes, and 10 other objects,
'which, for aught we know, may he only in appear-
: ance similar, this is the main question on which
;; I would insist. The bread which I formerly cal
· nourished me; thal is, a hodr of such SL"nsihlc qua I-
. ities was, al that time, endued wi1h such Sl'Crl'I
· powers: but docs it follow, that othL-r bread mu st
also nourish me at another lime, and that lik,·
sensible qualities mus1 always b,· a11,·1Hlnl with tlw
like secret J"'OWl' rs? · 1·11l' CtlllSl'l}lll'll(l' !'ln·111 s nc,wi!'IL'
necessary. Al kast. ii tnust h,· acknowkdged,
that there is herL' a co11scque11ce drawn hr the
mind, that there is a ccr1.1i11 step taken, a prnc~ss
of thought, and an i11fcrc11cc which wants '" he
· explained. These two propositions arc far froui
being the same, / have fo1111d tl1e11 s11cl, 1111 objccc
hai alwnys bcc11 111tc11dcd wit/1 me/, 1111 ,1fcct, and
I foresee, t/1111 ot/Jcr objects, wl,ic/1 11rc, i11 11ppenr-
anct, si111i/11r, will be nttc11dcd wit/, si111i/11r ef)"ccts.
I_shall allow, if you please, that the one proposi-
.lion may justly be inferred from the other: I
~?w, in fact, that it always is inferred. Uut if you
1st that ·the inference is made by a chain of
01 l;'l,.Jll ' 1'. l'lll~
h.',l!'IOlling, dl'sirL' you tn prnd111,:1.· 1'1.11 rt.',l!'IUll ·
ini;. The: conrH.·(tin11 hc..•t\\·c..·t.·11 thl':-.l' propo:-.ilion,
is not intuitil'l'. Tlwrl' is rl'qu ir,·d ., nwditt1ll. 1,·hicl,
may enable· lh•· mi11d 111 dr.11,· such ,m inkr,·n,,·.
if indeed ii lw dr,1wn by rc,1s1111i11f: .t11d ar~umrnl.
What that m,·di1t111 is, I JJHhl (1111fn, !'·"·" '' my
product· it whu ,1< ,l'rl 1h,t1 it n·.tlll' n i,h, ,tnd
is lht..· original of ;di our (nnclusinn :. Llllllt.'r11i11!,!
mailer of fact.
This nei:,11iv1• ,11pt1Hl'tll mu st ,,·r1 .1lnl ) . in
pruct·ss of time.:, .11lo~c..•1h1.:r
ht.'(OllH.' lOll\'i1h:i11~.
if 111;111)" p•·nclr,11 ing and ahl,· philm<1phl'" ,h,tll
turn their cnquiric:: this " ',ti'; .,nd 11t1 1111e b,·
ever able to discnvc:r any corHll'ding proposit io n
or inlcrmcdiat,· , tcp wh ich supports thl' un1kr -
s1a11di11g in this c<111clusio11. But a, the q11cslit1n
is Yl'l nc:w, l'Vl'ry n:adc:r m.Iy nol lr'-bt ~n f.tr to
hi~ own penetrat ion as to (oncludt..·, ht..·i.:.,u~l· .111
.irgumenl esc,pcs his enquiry. 1h.11 thl'rcforc it
<l,,cs 1101 realh· oisl. for thi, r,·:i,., ,: it 111,t)· I,,·
rl·quisite 10 Vl'tlllHl.' up1In ,1 111nr1.· diflillill l.l'i k :
and Cllllllll"f,lting .111 lhl.' hr.mdtL·~ of hu1 •1,111 kn,n,·-
ll·dgc, enJt·a,·or tu show, 1h.1t ll tllll' ul' 11:l·rn L.111
afford such an argumcnl.
All reasonings 111 ,1)' hl' di,·iJcd i11111 two kinds.
naml'ly , d1.· mon stra 1ive rl.\ h1111i11~ . nr th.it ..:on -
n~rning rdations of ideas; .111d llllH,d rc:-,lSl Hling.
or that concerning mailer of foci and cxisletKC.
That there an· nn d1.·nHH1s1rativ1.· argument s in
the case, seems evident, si n(t' ii im plit·s 110 (on -
tradiction , 1h.1t thl.· ..:ours1.' of natur1.· ·nu y changl',
an<l that an ohje.:1. se,·mingl )' like th ose 1vhteh we
h.1v,· cxpcrien(,·d. 111ay hl' .111,·n,kd 1,·i1h dilfrrrnl
or contrary eflix1,. ,\ IJ )' I not clearly and di, 1in,1ly
(OIICCi\'e, 1ha1 ii hod)', r.,lling fr11111 the ''"""'·
,tnd 1,hi,h in ,di t1lha rl', I'"'" " ·,,· ,nhln '"""'·
h.1s yc l lhl.· 1.,~ll.' ul ~.111 or f1.·d111~ ll l lir1.·~ I, llil·n·
.,n y nHHC inh.· llil-!ihk· prop11:-, i1 i1Ht lh.111 tu .,flirm .
that all th,· tree, will llo11rish in I t,·,,·111h,·r .111 d
Januar y, and will 1.kt.. ,I}' in ~l.17 and Ju11 l' ? N""·
whatever is intdli i:ihk, and can h,· disti11e1ly (<111 ·
ceivcd, implie, n~ wntradidiun, .111d can m·,·cr
be proved false b)' anr dcmons1r.11ivc ,1r~umrn1
or abs1rnct rt:J so ning ~, priori .
If we be, thcrcf., rc, engaged hr ar~umrnts '"
put trust in past experience, and ~kc it the
standard of our future judgment, these arguments
must be probable only, or such as regard mailer
of fact and real existence, according to the division
above mentioned. But that there is no argument
 lli\\'lll ltllME l'llf. l'IUllll L ,\ I lll INllUCTl!lN 225
224

of this kind, m11st appear, if 011r cxplirntion of I 11111st confess, sec111s the sa111e difftc11hy, couched roves 1101 1h,11 for !he fulure ii will ,onli1111l' so. nnl acrnrale . llut wi1h regard lo 1he prcsenl sub-
that species of reasoning be admitted as solid in different terms. The q11cstion still recurs, 011 fn vain do y<•u prclcnd to have le,trned 1he nalurL' jecl , there arc some considera1ions which seem
and satisfactor)', We have said that all arg11mcnts what process of arg11111cnt is this i11fcre11C<' founded! of bodies from rour past experience. Their Sl'Crcl lo remove all this accusalion of .irrogance or
concerning existence arc founded on the relation Where is the medium, the interposing ideas nature, and cons~·que111lr all their cffce1s and suspicion of mistake.
of cause and effect; that our knowledge of th.ti rela- which join propositions so very wide of each other? innuencc, may change, wi1ho111 ,Ill)' change in lh<·ir . II is ccr1ain, tha1 1he mos! ignorant and stupid
tion is derived entirely from experience; and that It is confcs•~d. th.ii the color, consistence, and scnsibk qualities . This h.1ppcns so111e1imes, and peasants, . nay infants, nay even brule beasts,
all our experimental conclusions proceed 11pon the other sensible q11ali1ies of bread, appear 1101 of wiih regard to some objects: why may ii 1101 improve h> experience, and learn 1hc qualities
supposition, that the future will be conformable 1hc111sclvcs to have any connection with the secret happen always, and wi1h r_cgilrd In all objects? nf na1ural object ~. by observing 1he effects which
to the past. To endeavor, therefore, the proof powers of nourish111cn1 and support: for 01her- What logic, wh,tl proces.~ or argumcnl, sccurL'S )'OU result from lhem. When a child has felt the ·
of this last supposition by probable arg11ments, c . wisc we could infer these secret powers from against 1his supposition? My pr,tClice, you sar, .s ensation of pain from touching the tlame o[ a
arguments regarding existence, tnust be evident!)' the firs! appearance of 1hesc sensible qualities, refutes Ill)' douhls. Uut you mistake lhc purport candle, he will be careful not to put his hand near
going in a circle, and taking that for granted which without 1hc aid of experience, contrary lo :he of my 4ues1ion . 1\s an agenl, I am qui1c s,11isficd all)' candle, but will cxpecl a simi lar effect from
is the very point in question. sentiment of all philosophers, and C\Hllrary lo plain ' in the point; bul as a philosopher, who h,ts so me a ca use which i~ similar in i1s sensible qualities
In reality. all arcuments from experience arc mailer of fact. Herc then is our nalural s1a1e of · share of curiosil)', I will nol sar sccp1ici s111, I and appearance. If you asserl, 1herefore, 1ha1 the
founded on the similarity which we discover ignorance with regard to lhc powers and inOu- ·- wan! to learn the founcla1ion of !his in(ererKe. understanding of 1he child is led i1110 1his con-
/ among natural objects, and by which we arc cncc of all objects. How is this remedied by ex-· '.'· No reading, no enquiry, has yel been able lo clusion by any process of argumenl or ra1iocina-
( induced to expect effects similar to those which pcricncc? II only shows us a number of uniform I. remove m)' difficuhy, or give me sa1isfae1io11 1inn, I mar j'.Jstly require you 10 produce 1hat
we ha,e found to follow from such objects. And cffccls resulting from certain objects, and teaches •, in a ma11er of such importance. C.111 I do hetlcr argument; nor have you any prelcnce to refuse
though non~ but a fool or madman will ever us 1ha1 those particular objects, al that particu- { than propose lhe di(Jiculty 10 lhe public, evrn so equitable a dcn:.:nd . You canno! sar !hat the
pretend to dispute the authority of experience, 1 lar time, were endowed with such powers and though, perhaps, I have small hopes of obtainin~ argumenl is abslruse, and mar possibly escape
or h> reject that great guide of human life, it may · forces. When a new object, endowed wi,h ,imilar · a solutior: ? We shall al leas! , by this means, be )•our inquiry; since you confo,s that i1 is obvious
surely be allowed a philosopher to have so mu~ii sensible qualities, is produced, we expect simil.:r : Stnsiblc of our ig,torance, if we do nol augmelll lo !he capacit)' of a mere infan1. If )'OU hesitate,
curiosity at least as to ·examine the p , in r iple of powers and forces, anti look for ~ like effect. our knowledge. 1hcrcfore, a moment, or i(, after reflection, you
human nature which gives this mighy authority From a body of like color and consistence with • I must confess that a man is guilty of unpar- produce ,1oy in1,;.:ate or profound argument,
to experiencP, and makes us draw advantage bread, we expect like nourishmenl and support.· . donable arrogance, who concludes, because an yo u, in a manner, give up !he question , and con-
f,om that similarity which nature has placed But this surely is a slep or progress of the mind argument has escaped his own invcs1iga1ion , fess, that it is not reasoning which engages i.;
among different objects- From causes which appear which wants to be explained. When a man says, · .., · that therefore it does nol really cxisl. I mus! also lo suppose the past resembling the future, and to
similar, we expect similar effects. This is the I /1avc found, i11 all past i11st1111ces, such sc11siblt . ':" . confess that , though all the learned, for scvrra l expect similar effects from causes which are 10
sum of all our experimental conclusions. Now it qualities conjoined with s11ch secret powers; and when ·. ages, should have employed thcmsclve., in fruil- appearance similar. This is the proposition which
seems evident, that if this conclusion were formed he says, similar se11sible qualities will always be con• les.1 search upon anr subject, it ma y srill , perhaps, I inlcnded to enforce in the presenl sec1ion. If I
by reason, it would be as perfect al first, and upon joined wit/1 similar secret powus; he is not guilty be ,ash lo conclude positively, tlw the subject musl he right , I pretend no r to have made any might)'
one instance, as after ever so long a course of ex- of a tautology, nor arc these propositions in any :· therefore pass all human cnntprehcnsion . Evl·n discovery. And if I be wrong, I must acknowledge
perience: but the, case is far otherwise. Nothing respccl the same. You say thal the one proposi- • though we examine all 1he sourn·s of o ur knm, - mrself lo be indeed a very backward scholar,
so like as eggs; yet no one, on account of this tion is an inference from the other: bu1 you must ledge, and conclude them u11fi1 for sud1 ;i sub- ,i r, c,: I cJ nn ot no,, discover an argumenl which ,
appearing similarity expects the same taste and confess that the inference is nol intuitive, nei1her . ject, there may still remain a suspi,in r, , 1h,11 1hc ii seems, was pc•rfoCII)' familiar 10 me long before
relish in all of them. It is only afte, a long course is it demonstrative. Of what nature is it, then? \enumeration is not co1nplctc, or the: cx :-1111in:1tin 11 I \\' JS n ul of m y cradle.
of uniform experiments in anr kind, that we To say it is experimental, is begging the question.
attain a firm reliance and security with regard f For all inferences from experience suppose, as
to a particular event. Now, where is tha! process their foundation, that the future will resemble the
of reasoning, which from one instance, draws a past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with
conclusion :.J diff··rent from that which ii infer- ~::ni:Jr sensible qualities . If there be any suspicion
from a hundred instances that arc nowise differ- thal the course of nature may change, and 1hat
ent from that single one? This question I propose, the pi\5l may be no rule for the future, all experi,-
as much for the sake of information, as with ence becomes useless, and can give rise lo n
an intention of raising difficulties. I cannot find, inference or conclusion. It is impossible, there,
I cannot imagine, any such reasoning. llut I keep fore, that any arguments fr\lm experience ca.ii
my mind still open to instruction, if any one will prove this resemblance of the past to the fu1urc:
vouchsafe to bestow it on me. since all these argumenlS are founded on th
Should it be said, that, fr;,m a number of uni- supposition of that resemblance. Lei the cou
form experiments, we infer a connection between · of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular, th
the sensible qualities and the secret powers, thi~ alone, without some new argument or inferen

J ' 1' • I ', "\ ,. ,.