Sorry, "assuming what you're trying to prove" is one of those phrases that comes as a bundle for me - I didn't mean to raise the issue of proof, but of justification as you say.
Your justification of induction seems to be "it has worked in the past" and I don't see how you're avoiding the fact that in order to use that as a justification, you need to start by assuming the principle of induction, so all you end up with is "In my experience, experience is a useful guide", which gets you nowhere.
I had been under the impression that the unfoundedness of the principle of induction was pretty uncontroversial in modern philosophy - am I mistaken?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 03:17 pm (UTC)Your justification of induction seems to be "it has worked in the past" and I don't see how you're avoiding the fact that in order to use that as a justification, you need to start by assuming the principle of induction, so all you end up with is "In my experience, experience is a useful guide", which gets you nowhere.
I had been under the impression that the unfoundedness of the principle of induction was pretty uncontroversial in modern philosophy - am I mistaken?