I posted this question earlier but I still need help with this.
I need to explain how this argument could be constructed as circular,
the argument is
[W]e may observe, that there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men, and the reports of eye-witnesses and spectators. This species of reasoning, perhaps, one may deny to be founded on the relation of cause and effect. I shall not dispute about a word. It will be sufficient to observe, that our assurance in any argument of this kind is derived from no other principle than our observation of the veracity of human testimony, and of the usual conformity of facts to the reports of witnesses. It being a general maxim, that no objects have any discoverable connexion together, and that all the inferences, which we can draw from one to another, are founded merely on our experience of their constant and regular conjunction; it is evident, that we ought not to make an exception to this maxim in favor of human testimony, whose connexion with any event seems, in itself, as little necessary as any other.
What I have is that the arguer is saying that testimony is important and useful, but some may deny that testimony is based on facts, but it's enough to note that our assurance in an argument is taken from the truthfulness of human testimony and the usual conformance of facts to the reports of witnesses, but a general truth is that no objects have any connection together and that all conclusions reached by evidence are founded only on our experiences of their occurrences and We shouldn’t make an exception that no objects have any connection together and that all conclusions reached by evidence are founded only on our experiences of their occurrences in favour of human testimony, whose connection with any event seen little necessary.
2 answers