[general_re]

But we may not, except by some other presumption, inductively reason whereby that particular consistency is turned into a universal.

I merely point out that by that logic, you have no rational basis for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow - after all, just because it has passed the test and risen on all the yesterdays we have experienced, that does not mean that one can generalize and declare that it will rise tomorrow. And yet I cannot help but suspect that you have an opinion on the subject regardless...

[cornelis]

I merely point out

Right. You point it out. And this too: inference from consistency into a credible prediction is one kind thinking, the transfer of that kind of knowledge into other fields of knowledge is something else altogether, requiring--as you say--"the useful." I suspect you have an opinion on the first kind, and I trust we won't be abusive on the second.

[Dataman]

I merely point out that by that logic, you have no rational basis for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow - after all, just because it has passed the test and risen on all the yesterdays we have experienced, that does not mean that one can generalize and declare that it will rise tomorrow.

This seems an incredible statement from an evolutionist whose entire existence is grounded in the inductive.