[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think thats what skeptics claim. Induction can support beliefs, one question is can it support knowledge. Even if you allow that induction can support knowledge then thats not enough to make knowledge possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand what you mean by this.

Im simply saying if you think induction cannot justify knowledge, then you are commited to saying we only know very few present tense things. People who used this rationale when answering no to the OP must also believe we cannot know anything about past events either. Any justification for a past event requires induction. I claim this a defect in the rationale.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's much debate about whether/why induction suuports rational beliefs. I don't think I've ever heard an argument that shows that induction supports knowledge in the sense meant by skeptics.

Of course your right about past events, skeptics clearly don't believe you can have knowledge of past events (nor present ones for that matter).

You claim there's a defect in the rational, fire away.

chez