Toby Friend

There is an inconsistency between the access we have to our conscious lives and the Humean thesis of causal generalism. This was first drawn attention to by John Hawthorne, whose argument withstands a number of objections. Nevertheless, it has weaknessess. The first premise must be weakened if Humeans are to be compelled to accept it, and consequently, the second premise will have to be stronger to retain validity. I shore up the case against Humeanism by providing revised premises along with new defences of them. I show why this also provides a lesson for non‐Humeans about the epistemology of causal relations.

Many Humeans are persuaded by an argument (separately) from Roberts, Lange and Woodward that strength ought not to be sacrificed in the competition for best system because scientific practice does not exhibit such a sacrifice. I here show that Humeans should not be so persuaded. The argument from Roberts, Lange and Woodward misses the fact that scientists can only systematize their experience, whereas the best system must systematize the entire world. However, while my demonstration shows that the argument against sacrificing strength should not have been persuasive in the way it has been, it does raise new and difficult questions for the Humean.