Verified answer

I will deal with the second part of the question first because I find the question somewhat confusing.

Hume's criticism of natural laws derives from his empirical and skeptical stance. (I am assuming the question is dealing with natural laws in a broad sense. Rather than get involved with ideas that, humans are governed by innate laws of nature which can be seen as philosophical, legal and moral I will stick to the idea that natural laws are identified as metaphysical concepts in general. I don't think the question is asking about Hume's moral philosophy, but I could be wrong.)

On this basis I would say that Hume's criticism can be summed up in his famous, 'Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'. Hume is an empiricist because he says the only meaningful ideas are either sense impressions or mathematical concepts. Sense impressions are meaningful because they can be tested by experience and observation. Mathematical concepts on the other hand are meaningful because they expression relations between ideas that we can see intuitively as true. As Hume claims no other concept, especially innate ideas can be tested since we have no way of determining their validity. Such things as, natural law, mind, and substance as meaningless since we have no way of testing their validity.

Hume is an empiricist and thus believes that all knowledge is derived from experience. Knowledge of the external world can be established inductively. In other words, the presupposition that the future will resemble the past.( This is where I find the question somewhat confusing. I don't think Hume is a skeptic when it comes to natural laws, he simply rejects them outright. This is the position I have put forward and it is Hume's position. If it is not based on observation and can be tested by experience then it simply doesn't exist. In other words, for Hume metaphysics is a myth. If natural law is a metaphysical concept then it is a myth according to Hume).

The reason I say this is because Hume is also skeptical of his own inductive methods. Hume says knowledge of the external world cannot be established neither deductively NOR INDUCTIVELY.

This is why he is a skeptic in every sense of the word. I am not sure what level philosophy you are doing but I have probably over complicated the question. If it is just a basic question then I would stick with what I have said in the first instance and then go on to point out why Hume is an empiricist, ie knowledge being based on induction or as Hume would say, matters of fact -things learned through experience.

Additional Information

I get it now. The question makes sense if we define naturalism in terms of 'scientific naturalism'

As you know Hume is an empiricist who is concerned with acquiring knowledge through observation, as I outlined earlier. Explanations are only supported by observable effects thus totally ruling out metaphysical explanations, as I outlined earlier. The skeptical part comes in when we talk about naturalistic science. Hume's methods are of course empirical which is the basis for science. Hume is skeptical about his own methods, as I outlined earlier.

Sorry to mislead you but it would have been better for the question to say, 'naturalistic science'. The term, 'naturalism' can be interpreted in different ways.

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

In which sense is Hume an “empiricist”? In which sense can we see that he is skeptic regarding natural laws?

*Note: This is not homework! It's simply a test preparation question. In other words, it doesn't matter where I get the information, just so long as it's the right information. Therefore, please spare me the "do your own homework" response.