Our Argument Is Not Flatly Circular, But

Unlike Descartes, We Own And Use Our Beliefs Of The Moment, Even In The Midst Of Philosophizing, Until By What Is Vaguely Called Scientific Method We Change Them Here And There For The Better. Within Our Own Total Evolving Doctrine, We Can Judge Truth As Earnestly And Absolutely As Can Be, Subject To Correction, But That Goes Without Saying.

No Two Of Us Learn Our Language Alike, Nor, In A Sense, Does Any Finish Learning It While He Lives.

For Me The Problem Of Induction Is A Problem About The World: A Problem Of How We, As We Are Now (by Our Present Scientific Lights), In A World We Never Made, Should Stand Better Than Random, Or Coin-tossing Chances Changes Of Coming Out Right When We Predict By Inductions. . . .

Confusion Of Sign And Object Is Original Sin Coeval With The Word.

The Strategy Of Semantic Ascent Is That It Carries The Discussion Into A Domain Where Both Parties Are Better Agreed On The Objects (viz., Words) And On The Main Terms Connecting Them. Words, Or Their Inscriptions, Unlike Points, Miles, Classes And The Rest, Are Tangible Objects Of The Size So Popular In The Marketplace, Where Men Of Unlike Conceptual Schemes Communicate At Their Best. The Strategy Is One Of Ascending To A Common Part Of Two Fundamentally Disparate Conceptual Schemes, The Better To Discuss The Disparate Foundations. No Wonder It Helps In Philosophy.