| On Hume's Analysis of Causation |

According to Hume, cause is defined as an object followed by another, and where all the objects, similar to the first, are followed by objects similar to the second. Further, effect is defined as that which immediately follows the cause. Given only this, there is no way of knowing exactly why the two are related.

Everything that we take for granted in our observations of existence then falls into the realm of superstition, as there is no universal law defining cause and effect. Rather, we can only see that a thing has happened before and suppose that the same will occur again.

In addition, given this definition of cause and effect, it would not be outside the constraints of possibility for a completely unrelated occurrence to manifest itself in any two connected events.

Given Hume’s example of the billiard balls, there is no necessary connection between the strike of the first and the motion of the second. Furthermore, it is only the outward impression of the senses with which we are basing our beliefs. There is no inward impression, no inward sense that this must be as such. "A caused B" is logically sufficient for "Events like A and events like B are constantly conjoined."

The absence of necessary connection is one aspect of Hume’s proposal that is debatable. One objection to this definition comes from Taylor, who reintroduces the concept of the necessary condition that Hume tried to eliminate. In Taylor’s analysis, A is not sufficient for B without some idea of power or efficacy. A is necessary for B if and only if as things were, B without A was impossible. Also, A is sufficient for B if and only if as things were, A without B is impossible. Taylor brings the idea of a necessary connection between events back into the picture. To say that B would not occur without the existence of A is to say that A is necessary for its occurrence. It is this necessary causation which is the primary divergence of Taylor from Hume.

| On Causal Prediction |

Some people argue that we as a species have been shaped by evolution so that we are good at forming correct causal beliefs on the basis of our experience.

An individual with greater capacity to predict an effect given a specific situation has a greater probability to succeed in that situation, hence a greater probability to survive and bear offspring. Thus, nature has selected those who are skilled at predicting outcome. The cumulative total of experiences forms the base with which we determine causality, and the skill to juxtaposition and correlate these experiences is a valuable trait for the survival of the individual.

Given Russell, Hume, and Taylor this view would likely fit best with Russell, as Russell at least acknowledges the "uniformity" of nature. Both Hume and Taylor feel that cause and effect are so arbitrary as to negate the necessary existence of such a principle; they do not rule it out but do not integrate it within their perspectives.

Russell, however, does address the permanence of the laws of nature. His view is that if a certain law is found to describe the behavior of a phenomenon, one expects this behavior to conform to these boundaries in the future. This arbitrary law of probability is not a certain method of prediction, but one must assume that if it has been true for a number of times it will continue on in this fashion.

Therefore, an individual who is skilled at forming causal predictions from prior experience will maintain an advantage so long as conditions persist in a causal fashion. It may happen that at some point A and B have no relationship, but the observation of previous connection forms the basis for one’s present behavior. There is no law of causality, but one makes the assumption that events will continue as they have. This may relegate prediction to the realm of superstition or faith, but in the absence of universal law it is the means with which one determines action.