Hume, Kant, causation, induction, inference and the scientific process

Causation: A theory of causation establishes the relationship between cause and effect. The simplest form of causation is that cause equals effect however more complex refutations have emerged from the likes of Kant and Hume. 

Kant’s book ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’ sought to prove that knowledge cannot transcend experience and is in part a priori. In this he analyses the distinctions between analytic and synthetic propositions and a prior and empirical propositions. 

Analytic proposition: A proposition that is self-evident and cannot contradict itself e.g. A wet cat is a cat.

Synthetic proposition: A proposition garnered from experience. 

Empirical proposition: A proposition derived from experience or observational data e.g. history or the laws of science.

A priori proposition: A proposition that may be derived from experience but when known, no longer requires observational data to affirm its certainty e.g. a mathematical proof. 

When Hume talks of causation he states that ‘Tis only causation, which produces such a connexion, as to give us assurance from the existence or action of one object, that ‘twas followed or preceded by any other circumstances by any other existence or action.’ This effectively means that causation allows us to see a relationship between two objects but does not allow us to definitively state ‘A causes B’.  Therefore he states experience gives us knowledge of cause and effect but it is not enough to know of A and B to establish cause and effect. Instead that through many instances whereby A has inferred B, A is consequently associated with B and thus establishes cause and effect between A and B which are now always conjoined. 

The scientific process uses synthetic logic in its reasoning and drawing conclusions. Science in itself cannot be one hundred percent sure on any matter linked with causation such as the effects of e.g. smoking or alcohol intake on health. They can only provide evidence which supports this and overall increase the probability that any theory propagated is true. This can be primarily seen for the theory of evolution, as this cannot be observed and proven it is simply a matter of providing evidence to the theory and the ability to refute the attacks of others. Therefore the theory of evolution is probably true due to the large amounts of evidence towards it but due to the nature of science it cannot be claimed to be an absolute truth and on these grounds it continues to be attacked by its opponents criticising the science who do not comprehend the fundamental way in which science operates.