What hadn't been realized in the literature until now is that merely to describe how severely something has been tested in the past itself embodies inductive assumptions, even as a statement about the past.

There is no justifiable prediction about how the hypothesis will hold up in the future; its degree of corroboration simply is a historical statement describing how severely the hypothesis has been tested in the past.

We just weren't tested the way we have been in the past.

I mean, I've been stupid in the past, and I've learned from that.

All the things that are in the past are in the past.

There's no sustenance in the past.