When I say that assumptions are made, I am not referring to the supposition of the theory itself. Rather, I mean that the principle mechanism of the devised experiment is sometimes based on the truth of the theory, and thus evidence by experiment is sometimes a form of circular reasoning. For example, a pseudo-experiment:
Hypothesis: Vision and hearing are adequate instruments for obtaining information.
Experiment: Create visual and auditory queues. Perform a double-blind experiment testing the ability of N subjects to identify these visual and auditory queues from different locations and distances.
Result: [Some analysis showing that these senses are 99.9% accurate within certain limits]. The visual and auditory senses appear to be reliable to a certain extent.
So anyways, the assumption that I'm referring to in this case is the hypothesis in that the validity of the experiment is determined by the validity of the hypothesis. You could never be sure that you had N subjects, create sensory queues, perform the double blind experiment, etc. without the use of vision and hearing. One assumes that they are doing all of these things correctly and as planned based on the presumption that vision and hearing are trustworthy instruments, and then the result is justified based on the alleged experiment.
@Neural
I shouldn't be so quick to call those 3 options "pathetic". If they seem to satisfy the practical criteria for happiness, then they satisfy the only criteria that matters to me. Otherwise, the only one that I consider to be truly invalid is Foundationalism as I have yet to encounter a statement that I consider so utterly true that it does not require justification. The other two options, Coherentism and Infinitism, at least result in all statements being justified and I can imagine that these two justification methods are closely related in that both a loop and an infinite chain are unending. In other words, because the limit of a circle, on an infinitesimal scale, is a line, I think it is impossible to distinguish between a circular path and an infinite path from the reference point of a being on the path who has access to a small enough portion of information. Regarding Coherentism, the invalidity of circular reasoning is both obvious and mysterious to me. Regarding Infinitism, I have found that it is only an invalid means of justification when considered by a finite mind because, to a finite mind, an infinite path is often dismissed as though it were a dead end. On the other hand, when one is able to extrapolate to infinity, one may find something that is not so different from Foundationalism: A true dead end where lower orders of infinity end and higher orders of infinity begin.
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that there is a possible synthesis of the 3 justification methods that is perhaps more apparent to me during psychedelic experience. But if one is displeased by the 3 options provided, I think the 4th and perhaps most practical option is to relinquish the need for justification in the first place; To be happy with not knowing.
Every day I am thankful that I was introduced to psychedelic drugs.