The Question of Why

[Perhaps]

Since you're so adamant about me responding.

"I have a hypothesis which I would like to test. If any statement is made and the question of 'why?' is asked in reference to that statement there will be finite regress of statements until eventually an assumption is made."

Your hypothesis?

Its called a Regress argument.

The Regress argument is based on epistemology, which requires justification. I specified in my hypothesis, which could be seen as being based off of regress argument (although I had not heard of the argument before you mentioned it), that eventually this justification becomes an assumption.

There's nothing wrong with inductive reasoning/assumptions... I never said there was.

Why address it in your earlier post then?

I was providing support for my hypothesis. Usually what is done in the scientific method...

I simply said that the fact that it is inductive supports my hypothesis. I swear, sometimes it seems like people just want to argue about things that were never said.

Not quite. One is a problem in epistemology. The other, is a philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning (assumptions as you put it) ultimately leads to knowledge. Both are seeking supported justification, but the regress argument is not concerned with calling into question empirical claims made in everyday life or through the aforementioned scientific method. Regress is simply a childish twat asking 'why?' over and over again until the childish twat gets a clip round the ear-hole.

Inductive reasoning is assumption based. You can use any synonym you wish to replace assumption, but it still supports my hypothesis. We justify our assumptions, that doesn't change the fact that they are assumptions. I'm sorry that my hypothesis is a 'childish twat', as you say.

That's honestly not worth a reply.

Oh, so "I concur" or "I agree" is too much for your ego?

Sorry Perhaps, you don't get to have your own version of the regress argument because it doesn't end with 'I don't know' or 'I don't care'. Regress is a never-ending loop that carries on ad infinitum. ANY proposition including those requires a justification according to this fundamental epistemic shortcoming.

My hypothesis clearly states an end. I specified the perimeters of the Regress argument. You are arguing a case which has nothing to do with my hypothesis. I chose my previous response because I thought all of this was self-evident, but apparently not.