Philosophy of Science Hume and Kant

Philosophy of Science Assignment 2: Hume vs. Kant

Tessa de Jongh- s765035        Joyce Kox- s555715        Maran de Loo – 387391         Group 3

dr J.H.P. Verburgt         503 words

Evaluate these accounts of Hume and Kant by applying them to an example of a causal statement from business administration (or economic) theory. Which of the two accounts is more plausible in the field of business administration (or economics)? Give one argument in favor of the account you prefer and one argument against the other. (Should you want to argue that neither Hume’s nor Kant’s account of causality is very convincing, please give one argument against each.)

Hume states we cannot see causality necessity or lawful knowledge. We only see contiguity, priority and constant conjunction. Believed is that, on the basis of sense impressions, one thing causes another, but this causality is not actually observable, so we cannot conclude to universality of nature or natural laws. According to the law of supply and demand, when f.e. the harvest of potatoes fails, the price will rise due to scarcity of potatoes (Besanko & Braeutigam, 2010). Hume’s contiguity in this case is given by the fact that the price will rise as soon as the supply is insufficient with respect to the demand. Surely, the price will rise after the harvest fails, so the cause is prior to effect (priority). Hume states that by constant conjunction, the situation of increasing prices due to scarcity is always the case in every economy. Still it is impossible according to Hume to test this causality in an inductive manner, thus this causality is the result of customized habit forming. (Doormalen, De Regt & Schouten, 2013)

Kant confirmed Hume’s view that we cannot see causality. We have knowledge of the world, but only about the world as it appears to us. Just, how is that possible? Humans are capable of forming synthetic a priori, which adds to our knowledge and stems from our reason (Dooremalen, De Regt & Schouten, 2007).                                                If we apply Kant to economics, knowledge of universal laws like the law of supply and demand is possible. Considering the case that the supply decreases due to a bad harvest, the price increases. This is according to Kant a synthetic a priori judgment; it expands our knowledge since the word supply does not tell us anything of its relation with the price. It is a priori because we can only see continuity, priority and constant conjunction and thus it is derived  from reasoning.