How Does David Hume Justify The Uniformity Of Nature

Introduction This essay will be explaining David Hume’s famous claim that induction depends on the “principle of the uniformity of nature. There are two ways to justify the principle of the uniformity of nature, inductively and deductively; Hume claims that PUN cannot be justified either way because to attempt to justify the principle inductively would be fallacious in the sense that it ends in a circular argument. To attempt to justify the principle deductively would also be impossible: one would need premises strong enough to prove with certainty that PUN is real which is nonviable. I will explain why Hume is correct in the sense that the principle cannot be supported deductively.
Thesis Statement
Hume’s argument is convincing because there
“We are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world” (Hume, 172), with that being said any and all inductive knowledge is from cause and effect inferences, cause and effect can be described as tied together through necessary connections (Lecture 5, p. 8). For example, we know that the effect of kicking a soccer ball is that the ball would launch in physical motion. We know this only because the effect is our prediction as to what happens after the cause. Humans see conjunctions not the binding of cause and effect, we need metaphysical knowledge that simple observations could never reveal. Our inductive knowledge is a series of constant conjunctions and not the necessary connections required to know the truth of nature. For example we see the cause and effect of an apple falling from a tree, the apple reaching maturity and falling from its branch to the ground yet we cannot observe or experience the hidden powers of nature such as gravity. This proceeds to follow to Hume claiming that PUN cannot be justified through deduction. There is no genuine way to have the knowledge of the truths of nature through experience. Hume is right that the principle uniformity of nature cannot be proven deductively either; we are
Hume claims that the principle uniformity of nature can only possibly be justified two ways, inductively and deductively, Hume also claims that both these means of proving PUN are wrong. This is fundamentally fallacious, there are only two ways to prove the principle however both ways are wrong; Hume builds his arguments upon a false dichotomy. Hume only provides two means of potentially justifying PUN where there may as well be alternative means (Spencer, 43). However this criticism does not weaken Hume’s original argument or the thesis of this essay simply because no other alternative ways of potentially proving PUN are offered. Hume simply states two common and widely accepted mediums of arriving at knowledge and debunks any possibility of deductive or inductive reasoning proving the truths of the principle uniformity of knowledge (Spencer,