This seems obviously circular, since you depend on using induction based on human languages to conclude that humans were produced by an evolutionary process.
I am not sure I fully understand this comment, or why you believe my argument is circular. It is possible that you are right, but I would very much appreciate a more thorough explanation.
In particular, I am not “concluding” that humans were produced by an evolutionary process; but rather using it as background knowledge. Moreover, this statement seems uncontroversial enough that I can bring it in as a premise without having to argue for it.
Since “humans were produced by an evolutionary process” is a premise and not a conclusion, I don’t understand what you mean by circular reasoning.
This seems obviously circular, since you depend on using induction based on human languages to conclude that humans were produced by an evolutionary process.
I am not sure I fully understand this comment, or why you believe my argument is circular. It is possible that you are right, but I would very much appreciate a more thorough explanation.
In particular, I am not “concluding” that humans were produced by an evolutionary process; but rather using it as background knowledge. Moreover, this statement seems uncontroversial enough that I can bring it in as a premise without having to argue for it.
Since “humans were produced by an evolutionary process” is a premise and not a conclusion, I don’t understand what you mean by circular reasoning.