Because there is a logical inference that since it has worked in the past, we may as well give it a try. — LD Saunders

Are you sure that's a logical inference?

Frank: Yes, I am sure that is a logical inference. Sure, there is the problem with the circularity of inductive reasoning, but, this is what science heavily relies upon. Would it really make sense that if B follows A, we should then no longer try doing A to bring about B? If we had a tire low on air pressure and we raised the pressure by blowing air into it, then should we try sucking air out to raise the pressure next time?

Would it really make sense that if B follows A, we should then no longer try doing A to bring about B? — LD Saunders

There just isn't any logical argument that allows us to conclude that the world of the future will resemble the world of the past.

When I first saw this thread on the list, by the way, I was guessing it was going to be a proposed forum name change.