entirely on human experience, and it is for this reason that it can not be a priori. Hume does not blindly state this proposition, he supports it with several examples that I find irrefutable. He suggests that no man when presented with gunpowder can imagine the explosion that can follow. The same is true when discussing the consequences of releasing a stone from ones hand. Without prior knowledge, it would be impossible to predict that the stone would fall to the ground. "No object ever discovers, by the qualities that which appear to the senses, either causes which produced it, or the effects which will arise from it; nor can our reason, unassisted by experience, ever draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact." It is here that Hume proves that knowledge based on cause and effect relies solely on experience and can not be based on reasonings a priori.Knowledge that is a priori is the exact opposite of knowledge that is obtained through experience. For the very definition of a priori is knowledge that is presupposed as prior to experience. It is apparent, from Humes past arguments that certain things are impossible to know prior to experience. Hume applies this same reasoning to all the laws of nature, and all the operations of bodies. He states that it is the influence of custom to infer that anyone without prior knowledge, would be able to predict the communication of motion between one Billiard-ball to another upon impulse. Hume follows by stating, "were any object presented to us, and were we required to pronounce concerning the effect, which would result from it, it would be impossible to do so, without consulting past observation." In all aspects of matter of fact, Hume has provided sufficient evidence, to support his affirmation.A skeptical argument is one in which everything is doubted. Hume is certainly not doubting everything when affirms that knowledge relating to cause and effect is never...
