次に、私は論理以外の原理によってのみ検証される（正しいと認められる）ような推論であるけれども、 我々がまったく堅固である（確かである）と感ずる推論の実例の収集に熱中した（devoted myself to 専心した）。 そうして、そういう実例を集める に当って、ある理論を擁護する哲学者によってのみ疑われるものは何でも全て（実例として）受け入れた（訳注：一人あるいは少数の哲学者が自分の理論を擁護するために疑問符をつけているだけで、多くの哲学者は疑問に思っていないような推論の事例を収集対象とした、ということか？）。大雑把に言って、（人間の）常識を、その常識が何か非常に説得力のある科学上の議論に反しないかぎり、 私は（収集対象として受け入れることを）拒否しなかった。 非常に簡単な例をとってみよう。 ある晴れた日に戸外を散歩していると仮定しよう。我々（Your）の影は我々（の歩み）とともに動く。 腕をふれば影も腕をふる。跳べば影も跳ぶ。そういった理由から、我々は躊躇なくそれを我々の影と呼び、その陰は我々の身体と因果関係（causal connection）をもっていることを我々はまったく疑わない。しかし、この推論は正気の人なら誰も疑わないものであるけれども、それは論理的に証明されるものではない。我々の身体の動きに似た動きをするが、しかし、それ自身の独立な存在をもっている、何か暗いパッチ（布状のもの）が存在していることは、論理的に不可能なことではない。 非論証的推論が疑う余地なく正しいと見えるような例をできる限り多数集めることによって、そういう場合に我々が誤まりを犯していないとすればいかなる論理外の原理が真でなければならないかを分析によって発見しようと私は努めた。そういう原理を正しいとする証拠は、個別的事例から得られる(由来する)のであって、逆は真でない。そのような原理が数個あると私には思われた。しかし、帰納法はそれらのうちの一つではないという結論に達した。

Chapter 16: Non-Demonstrative Inference , n.6
I found that, for lack of analysis, people had admitted blocks of non-demonstrative inference because they had a subjective prejudice in favour of certain kinds of knowledge, and had rejected other blocks on account of a contrary prejudice. It appeared to me that, in any particular case of an inference which seemed unquestionable, one should discover the principle upon which it depended and accept other inferences depending upon the same principle. I found that almost all philosophers had been mistaken as to what can and what cannot be inferred from experience alone. I divided the problem of empirical knowledge into three stages: (1) knowledge about myself; (2) knowledge about other minds — which includes the acceptance of testimony; and (3) knowledge about the physical world. Beginning with knowledge about myself, I found that solipsism as commonly expounded admits a great deal that is incompatible with the caution by which such a system is inspired. I do not remember anything that happened to me before I was two years old, but I do not think it plausible to maintain that I began to exist at the age of two. And in later life, I am quite convinced that many things happened to me which I do not remember. Even what I remember may have never happened. I have sometimes had dreams in which there were dream-memories that were wholly imaginary. I once dreamt that I was in terror of the police because I ‘remembered’ that, a month ago, Whitehead and I together had murdered Lloyd George. It follows that my recollecting something is not, per se, conclusive evidence that the something really happened. The solipsist, therefore, if he is to attain the logical safety of which he is in search, will be confined to what I call ‘solipsism of the moment’. He will say not only ‘I do not know whether the physical world exists or whether there are minds other than my own’, but he will have to go further and say, ‘I do not know whether I had a past or shall have a future, for these things are just as doubtful as the existence of other people or of the physical world’. No solipsist has ever gone as far as this, and therefore every solipsist has been inconsistent in accepting inferences about himself which have no better warrant than inferences about other people and things.
　Source: My Philosophical Development, 1959, by Bertrand Russell 　
　More info. https://russell-j.com/beginner/BR_MPD_16-060.HTM