Does Hume propose that what people interpret as casual connections could instead be explained by coincidence?
I want to know if this is an accurate understanding.
Hume says something to the effect of: We believe we know there is a causal connection between certain object and event if we’ve observed a co-occurrence between them countless times in the past (a), and we know the laws of the universe remain the same (b). We need to assert that the laws of the universe remain the same, or else the co-occurrence could be due to a changing of natural law without cause (which would be coincidental for it to align with our observations).
We have no problem knowing a, but b is more challenging. The common sense reason of how we know b is that we know that the laws of the universe are static, or will be the same today as previously.
Hume concludes that this reasoning for why the laws of the universe will be the same now as they were before is flawed and circular because it requires reasoning that because the laws are static, then they are static, so the belief in causal connection is not warranted.