...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...
Sorry, this deserved an explicit answer.
I treat it as an axiom, and I consider the circular justification 'good enough' for me to use the principle to try to make sense of the world around me an act accordingly. I accept that it is a circular justification, and acknowledge it as a weakness, but for me it's not a fatal one.
That is, honestly, good enough for me.
Assuming that it's not good enough for you (if it were, then I trust that you would see how I'm avoiding the fact you mention), then may I ask whether you avoid that fact in a different way? Do you use the principle of induction at all in reasoning about the world? If you do, how do you avoid the problem that you see me having with it? If not, what do you use? (See other reply for apologies about asking rhetorical-sounding questions seriously.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-08 03:52 pm (UTC)Sorry, this deserved an explicit answer.
I treat it as an axiom, and I consider the circular justification 'good enough' for me to use the principle to try to make sense of the world around me an act accordingly. I accept that it is a circular justification, and acknowledge it as a weakness, but for me it's not a fatal one.
That is, honestly, good enough for me.
Assuming that it's not good enough for you (if it were, then I trust that you would see how I'm avoiding the fact you mention), then may I ask whether you avoid that fact in a different way? Do you use the principle of induction at all in reasoning about the world? If you do, how do you avoid the problem that you see me having with it? If not, what do you use? (See other reply for apologies about asking rhetorical-sounding questions seriously.)