Why don't Christians put more effort into refuting Hume's arguments? It seems to me they waste their time with Nietzsche when all he did was take the line of thought started by Hume to some of its logical conclusions.
Hume is the keystone of the entirety of Modern thought. He should be Public Enemy Number One for Christian thinkers.
Other urls found in this thread:
calstatela.edu
twitter.com
>Why don't Christians put more effort into refuting Hume's arguments?
Because they can't
There to busy using him to attack new atheism. Which is really just atheists who have not read older atheists like Nietzsche and Hume
I have never heard of Hume. Why should I care about him?
Because Hume is just a reductio ad absurdum of Locke. You dont refute a refutation
/thread
Because to be a Christian requires that you do not possess rational thinking.
Because they can't
Yeah yeah *tips fedora* whatever
Because he begs the question on miracles, and his argument against causal arguments for God is literally, "You can't know nuffin', it could just look like causation, hitting you with a baseball bat just coincidentally happened before you started feeling pain."
Neither one of those statements are accurate.
By what empirical impressions does he know that only evidence from sense experience is a valid source of knowledge?
oh shit
Fuck off tranny.
Are you serious?
Are you a rational human being?
I will outlay your question for you.
"Which human would Christians believe over God Himself?"
Nobody's going to argue you into heaven dude. If anyone could, then someone else could argue you right back out.
OP won't reply to this.
Well Anscombe spilled allot of ink refuting him. I find Hume interesting, but quite often his arguments aren't that convincing when you slow down and take them premise by premise.
>By what empirical impressions does he know that only evidence from sense experience is a valid source of knowledge?
Kant doesn't argue for a priori knowledge of God, or anything like that. Actually Kant argues that you can only know about God through sense experience.
Kant's critique is a critique of pure reason, not of a priori knowledge of God and metaphysics.
>there's anything to reply to
Kant is like, 85% in agreement with Hume. They basically argue the same thing, and Kant's defense of Christianity is pretty flimsy tbqh. He's also routinely pointed out in not being justified in asserting the existence of the noumena.
>Well Anscombe spilled allot of ink refuting him. I find Hume interesting, but quite often his arguments aren't that convincing when you slow down and take them premise by premise.
Hume does end up being wrong about most everything, but that's not the point of reading Hume. Reading Hume will convincingly demonstrate that pretty much all a priori metaphysics are absolute junk. That's significant.
Also, Hume basically laid the foundation for modern empirical science from a philosophical/anti-Cartesian perspective, probably the only person to do more in favor of science starting from the renaissance is Francis Bacon.
>Reading Hume
>Hume does end up being wrong about most everything
>will convincingly demonstrate
>Hume does end up being wrong about most everything
>that pretty much all a priori metaphysics
>Hume does end up being wrong about most everything
>are absolute junk
>Hume does end up being wrong about most everything
>That's significant.
What?
Depends what you mean by "a priori metaphysics", his attacks on causation don't work. Anscombe shows that the idea that causation should be found in laws and necessary connections is a misconception in the first place and that we have a good enough working conception of causation without those features. So where Hume does a good job dismissing people who posit "causal laws" and the like, causation in general need not go with it.
His empiricism is extremely suspect as well since there is nothing in a single impression that gives us knowledge on how to link multiple impressions together, meaning that in some sense that feature of our knowledge must be apriori, since we don't get it from single impressions, and we have no access to multiple impressions as a means since that is what we are trying to give an account of.
How do you reconcile modern science with skepticism about the validity of induction ?
>Anscombe shows that the idea that causation should be found in laws and necessary connections is a misconception in the first place and that we have a good enough working conception of causation without those features.
Kant says the opposite, and since Kant is much more important and influential, I'll stick with what he says on the matter. No offense to Anscombe.
>His empiricism is extremely suspect as well since there is nothing in a single impression that gives us knowledge on how to link multiple impressions together, meaning that in some sense that feature of our knowledge must be apriori, since we don't get it from single impressions, and we have no access to multiple impressions as a means since that is what we are trying to give an account of.
Kant.jpg
Maybe Anscombe and Kant came to similar conclusions, but this is grade A Kant. That doesn't make Hume as wrong as you think he does.
Reading Hume here is tricky, really. Hume attacks the methods he wants people to use. He's actually in favor of induction.
I mean his conclusions are wrong. But his arguments up to the conclusions are pretty solid. Things are never an all or nothing in philosophy, bud.
>So where Hume does a good job dismissing people who posit "causal laws" and the like, causation in general need not go with it.
Also this is just a plain misreading of Hume. Hume does NOT reject causation. Any reading that tells you Hume rejects causation is plain wrong.
The "validity of induction" is a slippery way to put it. He never says induction is useless (which would be absurd), only that it does not yield definitive truth. Which is a concept that modern science actually depends upon. Science does not yield "truth," it creates models to predict future observations, and these models are always contingent, and can always be falsified.
Interestingly, the lack of a logical necessity for causality became more than just an academic point in modern physics, which actually deals with acausal events all the time.
>I mean his conclusions are wrong. But his arguments up to the conclusions are pretty solid.
>2-2=4
What?
I'm having a hard time understanding what the fuck you're trying to say.
Have you not read or heard of Kant and Hegel? German idealism is entirely an attempt to rescue spirituality from Anglo empiricism.
Arguments aren't isolated from their conclusions, if the conclusion is not solid, any appearance of the argument being solid is mere illusion.
>solid=right
>"I've never read Hume"
Of course not, but it does not follow at all that a wrong conclusion makes everything in the argument false. Yes, Hume makes mistakes, everyone recognizes that, the point is that he got many things correct, and the stuff he did get correct was super important for philosophy.
In other words, nobody reads Hume like a textbook for epistemology.
And because Hume honestly has more in common with the Christians than the New Atheists.
It's worse than that. This poster waifufagged a tranny so hard that after he scared said tranny away, he started wearing her trip, buffalo bill style.
What there is to reply to is that Hume declares that it is impossible to know things beyond one's sense experience yet Kant points out this assertion is based only on Hume's own subjective sense experience. To agree with Hume is to have faith that his sense experience is an accurate reflection of reality which is essentially the same as a Christian having faith that Jesus' words accurately describe reality. The difference of course is that Christians make faith one of the central tenets of their belief system whereas Hume's disciples pride themselves on being skeptical despite the fact that their beliefs rely as much on faith as do those of the Christian.
>Because he begs the question on miracles
Not really. Hume tried to make a simple claim. "Miracles are analytically contradictory."
A miracle means literally, that something impossible has happened. A miracle of ordinary events isn't a miracle.
If something miraculous happens, all it means is that you had a faulty notion of how the world worked, it didn't mean that the laws you held of the world were correct and then divine intervention violated the laws. That's nonsense and is a totally sensible position to anyone not desperate to cling to dead metaphysics.
>and his argument against causal arguments for God is literally, "You can't know nuffin', it could just look like causation, hitting you with a baseball bat just coincidentally happened before you started feeling pain."
Er, uh, no. He more says that you can know causation in some loose sense, which is the sense we infer ALL causation about the world, but the type of knowledge that would lend towards an understanding of prime causes is beyond our ability to grasp.
Hume would never say that you can't know that getting hit with a bat causes pain, he says that you can't know the absolute causal structure underneath it.
The more I read of you, the more I realize you're a shallow autodidact who reads everything with an obvious slant. Instead of just reading responses to Hume, you should also read defenses and be more honest about things. As long as you're "the Christian guy", you'll always come off as a demagogue and not a serious thinker.
If the result of the argument is false, yet the argument itself is true, then the argument is a perpetual motion device, with no beginning or end, and can't make claims to being true or false.
There's no point in arguing because there is no end point, argument, no matter how true or logical, merely exists to spawn more argument, not make conclusions (which themselves have no purpose, being false, thus begging the question whether there is even a point in getting to conclusions if the conclusion will merely be false, even if the argument is true).
This sounds like some sort of philosophized Schrodinger's Cat.
>yet Kant points out this assertion is based only on Hume's own subjective sense experience.
..no. This entirely misses the point of Kant.
>To agree with Hume is to have faith that his sense experience is an accurate reflection of reality which is essentially the same as a Christian having faith that Jesus' words accurately describe reality.
..no. Most people don't agree with Hume that all knowledge comes from sense experience. You don't HAVE to accept that to accept Hume's attack on metaphysics. Actually read Kant, not just the wikipedia.
>The difference of course is that Christians make faith one of the central tenets of their belief system whereas Hume's disciples pride themselves on being skeptical despite the fact that their beliefs rely as much on faith as do those of the Christian.
Tu quoque is the lowest form of argument Christians stoop to. Everybody ever believes some beliefs are more justified than others. Most people believe Hume and moreso Kant have a more accurate hierarchy of justification of belief than Christians do.
Simply saying "hur hur there are no distinctions, all beliefs are equally valid" is not going to be taken seriously by anyone.
Well if you ever want to read Anscombe's case
calstatela.edu
The skepticism against empiricism isn't Anscombe's, that's a general point you can find in Plato's Theatetus. It is a fairly Kantian point all in all though, I agree with that.
That makes sense. Peirce has a similar perspective on induction. Where it lacks in security it makes up for in the results it can get us in its own limited sphere.
Still epistemically it is questionable how we can justify the belief that because things have happened in such a way in the past that they will continue to act in such way in the future, even in a probabilistic sense. I don't see how we could justify believing that hot coffee will burn my tongue because hot coffee has burnt my tongue in the past without just appealing to the fact that in the past things have happened in the same way they did in their past, which just becomes circular reasoning. I don't see how we can justify even a probabilistic truth with induction given this critique. I think Hume's general critique of induction here is stronger than his justification of it.
Well sure we get the constant conjunction of events constructed by us as causation. But all causal efficacy is out. I think positing any sort of "causation" without efficacy is a cheap imitation of the concept. But yes, there are Humean accounts of "causation" in a sense, I don't deny that.
>If the result of the argument is false, yet the argument itself is true, then the argument is a perpetual motion device, with no beginning or end, and can't make claims to being true or false.
No. I can write a 500 line formal logical argument that's entirely correct and considered true, and if I add one contradictory or false line I can get a false conclusion.
I really don't get this line of argumentation you're making. It's simply not the case that a false conclusion lets you sweepingly dismiss the entire argument before it.
>There's no point in arguing because there is no end point, argument, no matter how true or logical, merely exists to spawn more argument, not make conclusions (which themselves have no purpose, being false, thus begging the question whether there is even a point in getting to conclusions if the conclusion will merely be false, even if the argument is true).
People will always disagree, but philosophers always come to conclusions. Conclusion =/= consensus.
>This sounds like some sort of philosophized Schrodinger's Cat.
?
>I find her much more convincing than Hume or Kant on this subject.
Thanks. I might have to actually do that.
>But all causal efficacy is out.
I suppose, but I don't really believe Hume is all that wrong in asserting this "baby" causation. Surely it lets certain causal explanations be falsified, for instance, we can notice that letting go of an object does not always means it falls, because we can see what's not constantly conjoined, but we can notice that things which feel heavy always drop when let go of. To say that, without an absolute sense of causation, we can't make true claims in this regard is I think an absurd view.
>Well sure we get the constant conjunction of events constructed by us as causation. But all causal efficacy is out. I think positing any sort of "causation" without efficacy is a cheap imitation of the concept. But yes, there are Humean accounts of "causation" in a sense, I don't deny that.
Also, in regards to this, it is totally plausible to me that Hume made a mistake and is not justified in his view of causation. This is probably what Anscombe argues against.
I just find people tend to read Hume in reverse, which is to say, they think Hume was TRYING to dismiss causation, which he wasn't, it just may be an inadvertent side effect of his argument. I tend to get pissy when people mix up Hume's intentionality. I argue for Hume as Hume saw himself, whether another person finds his reasoning on causation faulty is another subject altogether.
>It's simply not the case that a false conclusion lets you sweepingly dismiss the entire argument before it.
2-2=4, if I want to make this true it would be more reasonable to merely change the - to a + (the argument). But instead, I'm expected to say 2-2=4-4. But then I could just as easily say that 2-2=4-4=8-8=16-16=32-32=64-64=128-128 etc. etc.
It never ends, that seems to be the point of it. An argument that's always less false than it was before, but never being able to come to a true conclusion.
>People will always disagree, but philosophers always come to conclusions.
>?
Schrodinger's Conclusion, it's both true and false until someone disagrees with it. We may as well say fuck off to philosophy and stuff our faces with chocolate.
>I don't see how we could justify believing that hot coffee will burn my tongue because hot coffee has burnt my tongue in the past without just appealing to the fact that in the past things have happened in the same way they did in their past, which just becomes circular reasoning.
You can still appeal to empiricism and contest that we can see if things happen in the past the same way they do now. If atoms behaved the same way they did in the past then they'll still burn your tongue now.
>Schrodinger's Conclusion, it's both true and false until someone disagrees with it.
No. Schrodingers conclusion is that such a duality is absurd. Get out of your recliner and learn something.
Lol. 2-2=4 is not a series of claims. It is one claim. There's no argument involved.
2-2=4-4=8-8=...=2^n-2^n=... is a true set of statements.
If I said, 2+2=4-4=8-8=...=2^n-2^n=... then I would be making a false set of statements. But notice only one equality is false. 4-4=8-8=...=2^n-2^n=... are all true.
t. mathematician
Btw you should probably avoid mathematical logic until you get formal training in it.
Actually yes, Kant points out the irony of a so-called empiricist arguing for the primacy of subjective sense experience in epistemology.
However, you are correct that most people don't agree with Hume that all knowledge comes from sense experience but I am unsure how this fact is supposed to support Hume's position...
Lastly, yes everyone believes that some beliefs are more justified than others but it takes a special kind of hypocrite to criticize the entire notion of faith while simultaneously relying on it. Also based on demographics it is undeniable that most people find Christianity more persuasive than either Hume or Kant.
pretty much this.
As a Christian I use Hume all the time in dealing with materialists, skeptics, people who think they can derive oughts from is's without God, etc. He's really good for shredding a lot of bad philosophy to ribbons.
That being said all of his positive arguments are silly at best. Sentimentalism is literally the 'muh feels' of ethical deliberation, and he really can't put together any kind of justification for his empiricism. Philosophy made a wrong turn at Occam and it was all downhill until Wittgenstein slapped everyone silly and then people like Macintyre came along and showed persuasively that you can't even do philosophy (or any kind of science) without teleology. We're just starting to make a recovery now - I think it's time for a renaissance.
tl;dr Hume is good on offense but has no defense whatsoever.
My contention is that "causation" I.E. causal efficacy is supposed to do the explaining for individual events first and foremost. It shouldn't be considered any less of an instance of causation if we only see one example of say my hand being heated up by a coffee mug. We don't come to posit causation there due to constantly experience similar mugs heating up similar hands. We do this because we want to account for where the heat in the hand is coming from when it is heated in the individual case. And given that there is a heated thing touching the hand at the moment it heats up, it is a good hypothesis to posit that the mug, which was absent when the hand was unheated, and now is present while the hand is heated, while having heat itself, really is the best explanation for the heating.
We can say absolutely that there are some repeated cases of constant conjunction, but we don't really qualify why there is constant conjunction in some cases and not others unless we have an account for individual cases of conjunction in the first place.
That is totally fair. I'm actually pretty used to people equating Hume attacking the necessary connection as him attacking causation in general. But you are correct that strictly speaking that isn't quite right.
Yeah it is just applying that test to predictions about future results that remains problematic to me. Obviously it works for scientific practice without having that secure of epistemic foundations, it would nice to be able to understand why is all.
>tried to write a paper against Hume's empiricism
>can't even use reason because "reason ain't possible, and we inherently suck at it" argument
what a fucking cheeky move
>
If something miraculous happens, all it means is that you had a faulty notion of how the world worked, it didn't mean that the laws you held of the world were correct and then divine intervention violated the laws. That's nonsense and is a totally sensible position to anyone not desperate to cling to dead metaphysics.
Yes, but if you don't accept Hume's metaphysics, the argument is simply a redefinition, and if you do accept his metaphysics it's an argument for the Christian worldview.
>popularity matters
Correctness isn't democratic
Tell that to user:
>Most people believe Hume and moreso Kant have a more accurate hierarchy of justification of belief than Christians do.
>even though we can observe something happening the exact same way a thousand times that doesn't guarantee infallibly that it will happen the next time
this line of thinking essentially renders everything useless speculation. it's retarded
Well yeah that's why people were so happy to accept any philosopher who offered an alternative
Well... Everything is speculation in the end. I don't see any problem. Speculation doesn't means bad.
>it's retarded
Except it's not. He's absolutely right. Something happening a whole shitload of times is not a guarantee it will happen the same again.
Understanding these fundamental limits of our perceptions improves our ability to utilize our perceptions effectively.
I posted that. When I said people, I meant philosophically competent people.
Because you don't know actual christians and you confound those preaching the antichrist with the christian ones.
>N-no we are perfect christians the way christians are to be intended!
Oh, and why are your countries being struck by terrorist attacks and mass inmigration of potential terrorists? Why are countries being ruined economically?
>t-that's satan
Let's see:
Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care.
Looks like the will of God, not the will of satan.
>b-because they are of the devil like you
Does not the bible say that most of the world are demons? How come there's so many "true christians" like you?
1 John 5:19
We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
Matthew 10:21
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
Yep, looks like it's a minority of actual christians.
2 Thessalonians 2:4
He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Jesus: Oh hai guise, I'm a god and now you depend on me instead of on God. And look at where jesus is placed at churches.
And the funniest one: Jesus preachs to love your enemies who happen to be demons, to serve your enemies who happen to be demons, to give the other cheek to enemies who happen to be demons, to redistribute your wealth in a world populated by demons, that your sexuality is aberrant and you must deprive yourself of sexual fun.
So yeah, the antichrist.
Scientists are the opposite of Hume. Scientists are more the religious of the liberal society: they cling to their fantasies of rationalist while not giving a shit about people 's faith, as long as they get paid by those people.
Confirmed for never interacting with scientists.
It is as simple as this:
The devil: God loves you so much He'd rather have you die a frustrated virgin, trust me.
Anybody denying this and wanting to defend jesus will only be allowed to defend him by doing miracles that prove his words.
You are right, scientists care a little about what people think, and they become upset when people do not share their faith in scientific realism.
*tips fedora*
What British empiricists actually claimed, contrary to rationalists like Descartes and Leibniz, was that mind has no "innate ideas" or "rational intuition", and that all its content is the product of processing sensations. Apparently, Nietzsche's did not take kindly to the idea, but his "reductio" of sensualism does not work of course, and he suggests it half in jest. Technically, he equivocates on the word "product", sensualists use it epistemologically, while Nietzsche needs ontological meaning for his "reductio".
It is interesting that on causality Nietzsche fully sides with Hume's sensualist treatment against Kant's a priori, and "sense organs are not appearances in the way idealist philosophy uses that term" is a stab at Kant, who sharply separated "things in themselves" from "appearances", and refused to grant the former status to anything sensual.
>Hume's arguments
it's hard to argue with a faggot who never actually takes a position other than "lel u r wrong christfags btfo"
>lel u r wrong christfags btfo
is he wrong though?
>Yeah it is just applying that test to predictions about future results that remains problematic to me. Obviously it works for scientific practice without having that secure of epistemic foundations, it would nice to be able to understand why is all.
What if we knew enough about physical law to understand why it doesn't change with respect to time (or if it did - to understand why)?
We can already say that if physical law doesn't change with time then energy is conserved.
Hume's greatest argument was the Fork argument.
Nietzsche committed fallacies, and none of his arguments supported his conclusions.
[Argument from silence, personal incredulity, blame shifting, affirming the negative consequent, etc.]
>will to power
Morality without mathematical proof is meaningless.
Will without game theory proof is meaningless.
Moral philosophers are flawed in that they seek confirmation bias of their religious upbringing and nothing more.
Even when they pretend otherwise, it's always crystal clear when they cave into apologetics.
And they always do.
>Morality without mathematical proof is meaningless
Exactly
>f i n i t e r e s o u r c e s
>Morality without mathematical proof is meaningless.
Then again
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
More accurately translates to "has stewardship over" from what I've read.
Have you read literal translations of the first verses of Genesis? Almost completely indecipherable.
Stewardship or domain over, I see this in terms of ensuring life has the greatest possible chance to flourish in the future.
That's called the "Behavioral sink" and it's been proven to be flawed.
The graph was made via mouse/rat experiments
- Lacked expanding space
- Lacked self awareness
- Lacked technology
- Lacked self-deciding meal measures
etc.
The bible is gibberish.
It's actually called carrying capacity
All population and carrying concepts are all derivatives of the Behavioral Sink.
That's why it's not taken seriously.
You didn't counter my argument:
- Lacked expanding space
- Lacked self awareness
- Lacked technology
- Lacked self-deciding meal measures
>That's why it's not taken seriously.
t. you (pic related)
That's not a counter-argument.
Therefore there is no reason to take you seriously.
You did the same nonsense on sci.
I don't think you understand how reason, science, debate, epistemology, socratism, logic or empiricism work.
Which is sad because they all only follow 2 rules.
Presumptions aren't facts.
All claims require both reason and evidence.
>Therefore there is no reason to take you seriously
>You find no reason to take it seriously
>Therefore there is no reason to take you seriously
>You find no reason to take it seriously
Your mental illness and lack of education is showing.
Thanks for your opinion
checked
Would the person with incoherent thoughts and the communication issues please see a doctor.
You can't even form a proper sentence.
...
Non-sequitur
hitler dubs pls go
>Nietzsche committed fallacies, and none of his arguments supported his conclusions.
Wow, I've never read a dumber thing about Nietzsche in my life.
>it's hard to argue with a faggot who never actually takes a position other than "lel u r wrong christfags btfo"
except hume was disliked by most atheistic philosophers too
please don't post a reply out of ignorance.
>and are always wrong....
Seriously need to get back on your meds dude.
>It seems to me they waste their time with Nietzsche when all he did was take the line of thought started by Hume to some of its logical conclusions.
He didn't though really. Because Nietzsche thought knowledge was power and that empirical facts are literally the form of knowledge which people argue about the least in the world.
Which is vastly different from saying that everything that matters can only be found empirically and everything that can't be found empirically should just be trashed.
>Because Nietzsche thought knowledge was power and that empirical facts are literally the form of knowledge which people argue about the least in the world.
Nietzsche does believe in physics as some form of superior science. Nietzsche does launch a crusade against metaphysics in Human, All Too Human. He later laxes but Nietzsche still thinks science is a really good method of getting truths. Just not the only method. Nietzsche in HATH and in TGS does go through a Humean phase, which is still present in his works even if he doesn't accept Hume fully
Of course it does, because it's undeniable that science reaches physical facts about reality.
But his contention is that the search for physical facts are merely amusement for us, and are usually not why people go to war, why people love each other, and why people hate others.
Nobody has ever killed each other because of disagreements over whether 1+1=2 or 3, but they have killed each other over different moral rules and valuations, because valuations are the only thing that really matters to us.
Think about it; even science wouldn't exist if humans didn't value physical evidence.
Try comprehending Nietzsche's talk about the scientific method in The Gay Science if you want to understand what a Humean take on science would look like.
>it's undeniable that science reaches physical facts about reality.
It's totally deniable, depending on exactly what you mean here. In a common sense sense, yes, we reach physical facts, but not in any absolute sense.
>But his contention is that the search for physical facts are merely amusement for us, and are usually not why people go to war, why people love each other, and why people hate others.
Yes, the will to science is generally a nobleman's pursuit.
>Nobody has ever killed each other because of disagreements over whether 1+1=2 or 3
Actually there's quite a few examples of people fighting over math, literally. Tycho Brahe lost his nose over a duel about an equation.
>Think about it; even science wouldn't exist if humans didn't value physical evidence.
No, science exists because being wrong in a useful way is better than being right. Being right in a purely philosophical sense basically means skepticism, because no evidence is irrefutable absolutely. Nietzsche basically says "a method with errors is fine, if you can actually use that method". This stance totally and completely justifies how we can use Newtonian physics to launch a rocket, despite Newtonian physics being """"wrong"""" relative to relativity.
The only factor that judges truth is the degree to which it can be actually used.
Your talk of "valuations" is mostly pretty disconnected from Nietzsche's talk of science IIRC
I agree with everything you say here tbqh.
The only thing I meant with my original comment is that Hume literally wanted every book written on supposed knowledge that was gained without the use of empiricism to be trashed, which is a vastly different approach to science than what Nietzsche would agree with, so I don't think he can be accurately described as "Humean" at all.