With What Major Arguments Did Hume Allegedly Destroy the Integrity of the Scientific Method?

With what major arguments did Hume allegedly destroy the integrity of the scientific method?

Whilst Hume did not intend to destroy the integrity of the scientific method which is still in use today, it is true that number of his propositions have shaken the foundations of the scientific method.

The scientific method advocates for the collation of a number of observations to ascertain facts about the subject. These facts are then analysed and through an inductive process are consolidate into a theory that summarises the observed facts. The theory can then be used to deduce predictions about the future.

One of Hume’s arguments attacking the scientific method built upon Descartes concept a multitude of truths within the world. Descartes identified that there a numerous religions that each espouse their unique interpretation of the world as the truth and this is believed by their respective followers. However, as these religions at times contradict one another they cannot all possibly be true. Whilst this observation lead Descartes to systematic doubt, Hume delved further and examined facts. Hume extoled that facts are merely the perceiver’s interpretation of the world and that interpretations are subjective to the individual that is interpreting. This is because the words used to describe facts (e.g. colour, taste, and form) are all subjective. As such, facts may differ across the population of perceivers. It follows then that as facts are variable across observers, then they do not reflect the truth; and a theory induced from facts will not be reliable.

A second proposition by Hume is that whilst we perceive two events that seem to occur in conjunction, there is no way for us to know the nature of their connection. Based on this observation, Hume argues against the very concept of cause and effect which is used by the scientific process when inducing theories from facts. Hume argues that whilst we assume one thing causes another, it is just as possible that one thing does not cause the other.

Hume concluded that causation is a habit of association, a belief that is both unfounded and meaningless. He notes that when we repeatedly observe one event following another, our assumption that we are witnessing cause and effects seems logical to us. Hume holds that we have an instinctive belief in causality, rooted in biological habits; and that we can neither prove nor discount this belief.