IF THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING IN SKEPTICISM ATTRIBUTED TO HUME

Abstract

Hume is usually reckon ed a radical skeptic concerning causal knowledge. That is so because Hume claims that causal inferences do not rest upon the operations of reason, but rather up on habit. Some interpreters think we can conclude that for Hume it is irrationa I to belief in causal reasoning. I suggest here that it is unlikely that Hume supports such position, and, then, that such ascription of skepticism is inadequate, for it depends on a conception of knowledge which Hume probably does not accept. For this aim, I attempt to show that, as long as Hume views habit as a condition of possibility of empirical knowledge, he is able to coherently overcome the skeptic criterion (understood as the equipollence of arguments).