ass that had more in common with Hume than anyone else. Hume believed that all knowledge came from experience. He denied the existence of innate ideas because he believed the human mind invented nothing. Therefore, Hume probably would have appreciated the long Chemistry lab sessions in which we gained knowledge by making observations and performing experiments. Even though, Hume would have probably disagreed with certain parts of the Chemistry lab as well. The reason being that unlike Descartes who believed in the capacity of human reason/rationalization to achieve knowledge, Hume did not believe that certainty and knowledge through reason was possible. Hume repudiated the possibility of certain knowledge, finding in the mind nothing but a series of sensations, and held that cause-and-effect in the natural world derives solely from the conjunction of two simple impressions. He would not have agreed that the knowledge we gained by doing the experiment resulted in any type of certainty. For instance, he would not have accepted the idea that adding the hydrochloric acid to the solution caused the precipitate. At least he would not do so claiming certainty. Plus, doing so would not be in accordance with his beliefs on necessary connection. Hume claimed that the only necessary connections of which human beings have any knowledge are those found in mathematics. In all "matters of fact," the only connection we can find is made in the imagination. After repeated exposure to a pattern of succession, we expect the customary pattern to repeat itself again and again. We call one object the 'cause' and the other the 'effect'. We suppose that there is some connection between them by which the power in one infallibly produces the other. This feeling of connection which arises is the origin of the idea of necessary connection. Yet, as Hume argues, "after we have experience of the operations of cause and effect, our conclusions from that e...
