quote:
I don't think this actually constitutes a response. And if you do have some assumptions, then the question is this: are those "assumptions" completely arbitrary?
Pointing out that your question assumes a contradiction is certainly a valid response. Anything that is proven is a conclusion not an assumption.
And no, as I have been saying all along, we do not rely on arbitrary assumptions. We do use criteria, notably parsimony and pragmatic usefulness to choose which to make and which not to make.
quote:
So nature is not absolutely uniform?
I said no such thing.
quote:
I fail to understand this.
It is really very simple. The assumption of the uniformity of nature can only be false if nature is not uniform, but in that case your position is also false. However, if nature is uniform for some other reason than the one you assume, your position is incorrect, but my assumption is still true.
quote:
So we can resort to pragmatism with the uniformity of nature, but not with the pink elephant...do I detect some arbitrariness?
There is no arbitrariness in my position. As I said we use the most reliable methods applicable to each question. Since we cannot prove that the laws of nature will not change in the future it is, to that extent an assumption. But it is a very useful one (as the successes of human technology have demonstrated) and is thus pragmatically justified. Your "pink elephant" can be empirically investigated, which is much more reliable than pragmatic grounds and therefore we use THAT method. (Of course, it also fails on pragmatic grounds, being absolutely useless.)