{
  "id": "a_x4oj6ia3",
  "oid": 165086,
  "revision": 1,
  "revision_oid": 165087,
  "work": "orthodoxy",
  "edition": "pg16769-r1",
  "title": "The witch's caution and Hume's necessary connection",
  "anchors": [
    {
      "unit": "CH04.P010",
      "oid": 75,
      "role": null,
      "edition": "pg16769-r1",
      "paragraph": "CH04.P010",
      "exact": "a necessary mental connection between a horn and a falling tower",
      "start": 583,
      "end": 647,
      "prefix": "ddle her head until it imagines ",
      "suffix": ". But the scientific men do mudd",
      "url": "/orthodoxy/pg16769-r1/CH04.P010#char=583,647"
    }
  ],
  "body_markdown": "The distinction has a close philosophical counterpart in Hume's *Enquiry concerning Human Understanding* (first published in 1748 as *Philosophical Essays*; the linked Peter Millican electronic text follows the 1777 edition). In [section IV, paragraphs 8–10](https://davidhume.org/texts/e/4), Hume argues that familiarity makes an effect appear discoverable by reason alone: even an unsupported stone's downward motion cannot be deduced without experience. His [section VII, paragraphs 27–28](https://davidhume.org/texts/e/7), explains how repeated conjunction produces habitual expectation, which we experience as connection. Chesterton's witch preserves the distinction between expecting an event and understanding why its opposite is impossible.\n\nThe resemblance does not establish that Chesterton borrowed this passage from Hume. Nor does their agreement extend automatically to the chapter's eventual suggestion of a magician behind nature. Hume explicitly argues in section VII, paragraph 25, that divine volition is no more intelligible to us as a productive power than bodily interaction. The shared criticism of necessary connection therefore leaves open sharply different interpretations of the world's mystery.",
  "sources": [
    {
      "url": "https://davidhume.org/texts/e/4",
      "title": "David Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, section IV",
      "locator": "E 4.8–10; SBN 28–30; Millican electronic text following 1777",
      "exact": null
    },
    {
      "url": "https://davidhume.org/texts/e/7",
      "title": "David Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, section VII",
      "locator": "E 7.25, 7.27–28; SBN 72–76",
      "exact": null
    },
    {
      "url": "https://davidhume.org/texts/e/notes",
      "title": "Hume Texts Online, editorial notes to the first Enquiry",
      "locator": "Publication history and final paragraph identifying the 1777 text",
      "exact": null
    }
  ],
  "citations": [],
  "external_references": [
    {
      "url": "https://davidhume.org/texts/e/4",
      "title": "section IV, paragraphs 8–10"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://davidhume.org/texts/e/7",
      "title": "section VII, paragraphs 27–28"
    }
  ],
  "limits": [
    "A conceptual comparison, not evidence of direct influence."
  ],
  "metadata": {
    "run": "chapter-04-restart-2026-11-07",
    "paragraph_investigator": "P010",
    "task": [
      {
        "approach": "Philosophical contextualization: then and since",
        "question": "How closely does the distinction between repeated succession and intelligible necessity resemble Hume's account of causation?"
      },
      {
        "approach": "Interlocutors and historical debates",
        "question": "Does Newton himself claim the kind of complete intelligibility attributed to scientific men?"
      }
    ],
    "model": "gpt-6.1-sol"
  },
  "content_sha256": "sha256:c2c586da9316231148a1118be2f1db08099af589ceaf7539d76c7fe89ce0f54c",
  "created_at": "2026-11-07T16:59:22Z",
  "is_current": true,
  "url": "/a/a_x4oj6ia3",
  "revision_path": "/a/a_x4oj6ia3/r/1",
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "a_5hvc6pyt",
      "revision": 1,
      "title": "A home large enough for discovery: the developing argument of Orthodoxy",
      "url": "/a/a_5hvc6pyt"
    }
  ]
}