Hume directly addresses animal reasoning and concludes that human causal reasoning must be similar to what he has identified in non-human animals. It would be easy to attribute influence on this issue to skeptical thinkers who influenced other parts of Hume’s philosophy and also addressed non-human animal reasoning, i.e., Bayle, Montaigne, and/or Sextus Empiricus. I argue that such claims of direct influence are improbable. First, Hume establishes conclusions about human reasoning on the basis of examining animals; the skeptics establish conclusions about animal reasoning on the basis of their similarities to humans. Second, Hume’s conclusions in these sections differ in scope and function from those of these skeptics. Finally, Hume’s evidence differs markedly from these skeptics’. Hume and these skeptics do make use of the same kind of comparison between humans and animals, but that comparison is also found in other Modern thinkers that Hume read: I show that it is present in Hobbes and Locke.

中文翻译：

---

怀疑论对休谟动物推理观的影响

休谟直接论述了动物推理，并得出结论，人类的因果推理必须与他在非人类动物中发现的相似。很容易将这个问题的影响归因于怀疑论思想家，他们影响了休谟哲学的其他部分，也解决了非人类动物推理，即拜尔、蒙田和/或塞克斯图斯经验。我认为这种直接影响的说法是不可能的。首先，休谟在考察动物的基础上建立了关于人类推理的结论；怀疑论者根据动物与人类的相似性得出关于动物推理的结论。其次，休谟在这些部分的结论在范围和功能上与这些怀疑论者的结论不同。最后，休谟的证据明显不同于这些怀疑论者的证据。