— Alexander Spirkin in "Dialectical Materialism", 1984In contrast, Bertrand Russell argued (in 1912) that the law of causation as usually stated by philosophers is false and is not used in sciences (maybe with exception of their infancy).
[3] In 1927 Russell writes that the notion of universal causation marks the beginnings of science and philosophy.
[8]Contrary to hypothetico-deductivists Mill focuses on inductive reasoning and observations in framing of the Law of Universal Causation i.e. uses basic features of experimental methods and convinces, after critical analysis, that this law is proved by induction better than any other of subordinate generalizations.
[9][10] The belief we entertain in the universality, throughout nature, of the law of cause and effect, is itself an instance of induction.
[9]Also popular proof and answer to skepticism (for instance that of David Hume) is that PUC has been true in so many cases, that (using basic inductivist scientific method enumerative inductive reasoning)[10] it is reasonable to say that it is true in every case, moreover counter-example i.e. event that does not have a cause is hard to conceive.
[11] Modern version of law of universal causation is connected with Newtonian physics, but is also criticized for instance by David Hume who presents skeptical reductionist view on causality.
If all events are cause and effect relationships that follow universal rules, then all events—past, present and future—are theoretically determinate.