It can be stated that wisdom is accumulated knowledge and is produced by our experience. An aware mind of a human (and sufficiently evolved) being can use the accumulated knowledge to relate action and result of it to a set of particular circumstances. By observing children it is possible to see that there is insufficient amount of knowledge accumulated to link action to the outcome. In order to acquire ability to establish such links between actions and outcomes children must acquire experience. In "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding" Davide Hume attempts to develop this line of thinking.
It is possible to derive future from past event by drawing certain connections between whats known and whats hypothetically possible. David Hume questions how reasoning is associated with the process of deriving future from the past. In his opinion for all ideas exists previous experience from which ideas are produced. If mental picture of something was not experienced it shouldn't be possible to have some kind of personal view regarding it. For example it is possible to say that something is sweet to someone who never had anything sweet. This would provide knowledge to someone that something is sweet. However it does not convey understanding of what sweet is in any way. A mental picture of something must be a basis for idea about it. If mental picture is absent is it impossible to derive correct meaning of the idea. I suppose a flawed but intuitively understandable analogy would be two people talking about subject neither understands, where subject can not be learned, only experienced. So Hume is stating that predicting some event, is not possible without experience of something similar. Further he proves that knowledge derived from some causal link requires experience to interpret. It can not be derived from reasoning based on some existing knowledge that happens before experience (priori).