Kant VS Hume David Hume works from world to mind, Immanuel Kant from mind to world. Hume, how we experience the world is conditioned by the world. Kant, how we experience the world is conditioned by the mind.
Most contemporary philosophers believe that Hume refuted the views of the rationalists before him (Descartes, Hobbes Spinoza, and Leibniz), who all held that there is an element of genuine a priori reasoning in causal inference. According to Hume, however, causal relations are not logically necessary, and hence they cannot be known a priori. To say that even if A caused B, it is not logically impossible to suppose that, given A, B might not have occurred. (De Pierris)
So far as reason and logic are concerned, given a particular event, anything may happen next. This is precisely the reason why causal relations cannot be known a priori; in order to determine whether or not a causal relation holds between A and B we must rely on our experience of similar relations. "There are no objects," wrote Hume, "which by the mere survey, without consulting experience; we can determine to be the causes of any other; and no objects, which we can certainly determine in the same manner not to be the causes" (Lorkowski)
Hume analyzed the idea of causality by emphasizing the three demands that can be verified through observation. First he argued the aspect of constant conjunction. In this aspect, the cause and effect must be spatially and constantly existent. Secondly, he asserted that it must have temporal priority, in that; the cause had to precede the effect. Lastly, the event must have a necessary connection we must develop an understanding of why a cause produces a certain effect. Hume’s critique of causation is that we cannot see it, we must infer it. (Lorkowski) For example, two billiard balls, one moving toward the next demonstrate temporal priority because one ball is moving first. Secondly, constant conjunction occurs because the balls exist together spatially and constantly. But, there is no necessary reason why this happens.
Causation was an important topic for Kant. Kant famously confessed that “the recollection of David Hume was just the thing which many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber, and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a completely different direction” (Kant). What was it in Hume’s writings that affected Kant so powerfully? It was Hume’s treatment of cause and effect.
Kant responded to his predecessors by arguing against the Empiricists that the mind is not a blank slate that is written upon by the empirical world, and by rejecting the Rationalists’ notion that pure, a priori knowledge of a mind-independent world was possible. (Keuhn) Kant’s first step out of his dogmatic slumber was to realize that Hume was right. That is, concepts alone cannot give us any necessary connection between objects and so concepts alone cannot be the source of our concept of cause and effect. So the concept of cause and effect must come from somewhere else.
Kant tells us that he quickly realized it was not unique at all. For he soon found that the concept of the connection of cause and effect is by far not the only one through which the understanding thinks a priori the connection of things, but rather that metaphysics consists entirely of this. (Kant). In Kant's words, the question of "how...a thing can be a cause" is the question of "how, because something is, something else must be" It is clear that Kant also holds that causal power is an essential component of the concept of causation; for example, he refers to the "causality of a substance, which is called power" (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason).
Kant is addressing is as follows: we wish to establish the fact that B succeeds A and does not coexist with it, but apparently there is no evidence that could establish this fact, for any evidence compatible with B succeeding A is also compatible with B coexisting with A. But the problem could be solved if there were some other fact involving A and B such that there did exist possible evidence to establish this other fact, and it was a consequence of this other fact that B succeeded A and did not coexist with it. In the Second Analogy, Kant proposes that the only possible candidate for this other fact is that B is caused either by A itself or by some other state of affairs existing simultaneously with A (the 'causal fact'). Since it is part of the schema of causation that causes precede their effects, it is clearly a consequence of the causal fact that B succeeds A. (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason).
After reading David Hume and Immanuel Kant, in my opinion I have come to realize that they both can be correct and also they can both be incorrect. It is very difficult to understand Kant’s writing on causation (cause and effect) when reading Critique of Pure Reason. I found it interesting that I understand Hume’s point of view, “that we cannot see it, we must infer it”. I have also concluded that Kant must be correct that B must succeed A.

Bibliography
De Pierris, Graciela and Friedman, Michael. Kant and Hume on Causality. Stanford: \url{http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/kant-hume-causality/, 2008.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martins Press, 1781,1787,1967.
—. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Trans. Paul Carus. Germany, 1783,1902.
Keuhn, Manfred. "Kant's Conception of "Hume's Problem"." Journal of the History of Philosophy (1983): 175-193.
Lorkowski, C. M. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 10 Nov 2010. 12 Feb 2011 <http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/>.