The Question of Why

[Perhaps]

I specified in my hypothesis, which could be seen as being based off of regress argument

It isn't another form of a regress argument, IT IS the regress argument in question. You don't get to have a -cut off point- where any given proposition no longer requires a justification to prove some arbitrary point. According to the Regress Argument "I don't know, I'm just making an assumption" ALSO requires justification and 'Why?' is asked yet again. Its identified as a never-ending loop for that reason.

Regress Argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument

is a problem in epistemology and, in general, a problem in any situation where a statement has to be justified.

Not quite my hypothesis, although my hypothesis does use this same principle. I stated that eventually the justification becomes an assumption, which would end the reach of my hypothesis and conduct the experiment. One could then apply the regress argument and get a justification for the assumption.

Inductive reasoning is assumption based. You can use any synonym you wish to replace assumption, but it still supports my hypothesis.

The Problem of induction dates back to ancient philosophy, it doesn't support or address your 'hypothesis'.

The fact that induction is not deduction supports my hypothesis in the fact that it is an assumption by simple definition. A deductive conclusion is a fact, an inductive conclusion is an assumed fact.

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.

Usage of the Regress Argument in an epistemic debate or dispute is childish.

Doesn't change my hypothesis.

---

You're not still entertaining that waffling fuckwit are you?

Thanks Boo