The Question of Why

[Perhaps]

"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."

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

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.

[Welsh cake]

"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.

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

Why address it in your earlier post then?

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.

[Perhaps]

That's honestly not worth a reply.

[Epimethean]

Why?

[houseofcantor]

"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."

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

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.

I'm thinking the theist then reduces to axiom of god while the atheist reduces to the axiom of Peano.

From experience, your last statement is a correct application of assumption.

[Welsh cake]

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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

The scientific method? Well, consider your hypothesis falsified at the first "We don't know", plenty of those floating about. The word "any" likely being the culprit. If you narrowed your hypothesis a great deal you might be able to go further.

[Perhaps]

What category of assertion is the phrase 'we don't know'?

[houseofcantor]

Parsimony. "We don't know" the unknown you are trying to quantify nor qualify.