Hume established that no non-circular argument can justify induction, and reflective equilibrium presupposes the legitimacy of the very inductive practices it purports to validate.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Hume(as the main philosopher discussed in this statement): David Hume was an 18th-century Scottish philosopher who argued that human knowledge comes from experience and observation rather than pure reasoning alone.
Legitimacy(as what the argument is discussing whether democracy or autocracy can possess): The quality of being rightfully in power; when people accept that a government has the right to rule.
Non-circular argument(Hume's point is that you can't justify induction without circular reasoning): A logical explanation that doesn't rely on assuming the very thing it's trying to prove (circular reasoning is when you use your conclusion as evidence for itself).
Presupposes(as describing what Plantinga's argument takes for granted): Assumes something to be true without proving it—like how an argument might presuppose that logic works, without first arguing that logic is valid.

Based on where you are in your exploration