Cause and Effect

An inductive argument draws from a general conclusion, and essentially poses a cause and effect like response. For instance, if you only have seen white swans, you would assume all swans are white. If you walk into a room and hit the light switch and the light comes on, then obviously the two are connected. Much like Hume, I would argue that cause and effect isn't necessarily the answer - but rather based off of habit.

For instance, when Pavlov did the bell experiment with the dogs (when you rang the bell, the dogs would come because they knew that there would be food) it was simply the idea of training the mind to think that when you hear a bell, food must be near. If you rang a bell at a passing dog, it may not do anything besides just stare at you blankly. But, for instance, if you trained a dog to run when a bell rang, the dog would run.

Essentially, Pavlov's experiment, and Hume's argument both supply amble amount of reason to believe that cause and effect aren't solely inherent, but rather based off of experience, and a sense of "training" your brain to understand something.