One of my weaknesses as a writer is that I’m not the best at keeping track of what other people have said about stuff I’m writing about. I’m sure in the past this has led to me citing less papers than I should have, simply because I didn’t know about the paper to be cited. Frequently, it leads to me finding out when well into a project about something that I should have read at the start.

This is all a roundabout way of saying that I just read, and quite liked, Samir Okasha’s paper “What Did Hume Really Show About Induction?”:http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9213.00231. Samir takes Hume to be making what I call the exhaustive argument for inductive scepticism. More importantly, he takes the problem with the argument to be that the argument for the ‘induction can’t be justified empirically’ premise assumes that we decide in advance how we’ll respond to new evidence. That’s, er, very close to what I think is wrong with the argument. So it’s a good paper, and I encourage you all to read it. (There is also a “back”:http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9213.00264 and “forth”:http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/linkout?suffix=citedby&doi=10.1111/1467-9213.00264&doi2=10.1111/1467-9213.00322&url=/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9213.00322 with Marc Lange in later issues of the _Philosophical Quarterly_ on this paper.)