his philosophy will have any constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail.”(Hume 226) Hume discusses the purpose of the situation. Along with that, he implicates that there should be a definite answer: Simply a cause and effect with proof. Another quote explains “When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make?” (Hume 238) For example, if there cause of an incident, should there be a solution? Humes refers to havoc as an analysis of a problem, referring to its cause and effect, and introducing a solution. When referring to cause and effect, skepticism plays a significant role due to any actions made. Group II: Churchland Eliminative materialism is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist (Churchland 287). In short, Churchland believes that humans were wrong about a lot of situations, that there is no plausible reason to believe it. One might also gripe that the theory is over optimistic about future of eliminative materialism. Churchland critically plays the role of hypocrite to his own belief, but in reality, eliminative materialism is farfetched idea which compares to witch-craft. The theory has a high sense of doubt not because the prospects for a materialist account of our mental capacities were thought to be poor because it seemed to disorient the logic of those who believe in this theory. Churchland in his article summarizes how common-sense psychological framework is a false and radically misleading conception of the causes of human behavior and the nature of cognitive activity. The initial plausibility of this rather radical view is low for almost everyone, since it denies deeply entrenched assumptions (Churchland 288). Churchland reinforces these statements by quoting, “Eliminative materialism does not imply the end of our normative concerns. It implies only that they will have to be reconstituted at a more revealing level of understanding, the level that a matured neuroscience will provide.” Thus, we must be careful not to indulge in the denial of the antecedent of a conditional” (Churchland 289). Essentially the explanation is whittled down to where if folk psychology is true, then human obey certain ideal; if folk psychology is falsified; humans do not obey these ideals (Churchland 290). This logic is very skewed and creates a very confusing thought process. Essentially there is no questioning process, only a “cut-and-dry” thought process. “Therefore the point of eliminative materialism is that categorization of mental states according to our ordinary, everyday understanding is illegitimate, because it is not supported by the best scientific taxonomies that deal wi>