For those who are arguing that a theory of non-causation needn’t be considered because it is not predictive, I do not think this is the correct refutation. As spuckbase pointed out in a comment, using the predictive ability to judge the merit of a theory presupposes a causal reality. Fortunately, we forget this because causal reality is hardly ever challenged.
So what really challenges Hume theory?
In the context of belief in external reality (in the context of considering the intersection of a Hume theory and empiricism), the correct refutation of Hume theory is that while it might be logically conceivable that all the order we see is only chance (like the possibility of flipping heads an infinite number of times), the probability is zero.
However, the general refutation would occur earlier:
{Shouldn’t we just stop worrying and accept living in a Hume world? Or are there actual arguments in favour of “real” causation?
Yes. There’s the problem of order.}
What order? If there is no causation, then my observations and perceptions are not causally related to reality. According to Hume non-causation, if neurons did exist, memories would not be causally related to the past. However, my belief in the existence of neurons is nor causally related to the actual existence of neurons. I have no reason to believe in the experience of anything other than the thoughts of an instantaneous moment in time.
This theory is indistinguishable from solipsism.
Which I believe is refuted only on the basis of being boring after a while?
For those who are arguing that a theory of non-causation needn’t be considered because it is not predictive, I do not think this is the correct refutation. As spuckbase pointed out in a comment, using the predictive ability to judge the merit of a theory presupposes a causal reality. Fortunately, we forget this because causal reality is hardly ever challenged.
So what really challenges Hume theory?
In the context of belief in external reality (in the context of considering the intersection of a Hume theory and empiricism), the correct refutation of Hume theory is that while it might be logically conceivable that all the order we see is only chance (like the possibility of flipping heads an infinite number of times), the probability is zero.
However, the general refutation would occur earlier:
Yes. There’s the problem of order.}
What order? If there is no causation, then my observations and perceptions are not causally related to reality. According to Hume non-causation, if neurons did exist, memories would not be causally related to the past. However, my belief in the existence of neurons is nor causally related to the actual existence of neurons. I have no reason to believe in the experience of anything other than the thoughts of an instantaneous moment in time.
This theory is indistinguishable from solipsism.
Which I believe is refuted only on the basis of being boring after a while?