The Relationship Between Knowledge and Proof

If in order to prove any causal statement, you had to actually perceive the antecedent and the consequent and then perceive them a bunch of times, we would never perceive that right. We can't, we have no direct apprehension of those physical objects by definition. So either we just have no idea that physical objects exist or Hume's demand that this is what causality is is wrong, is unnecessarily restrictive. Yeah. What Moore is also doing here and he gets into it in the next sentences, he's making a strong claim about the relationship between knowledge and proof. And he says, I think this is a mistake.