So if you want to argue persuasively using this type of
inductive argument, you must provide a great deal of evidence to make it a strong argument.
To apply the
inductive argument to [G.sub.1], we form a pairing of [G.sub.1] as follows.
It should be noted that both the two cases and
inductive argument types contributed to the growth rates.
Inductive arguments, which are based on the abstract principles of value rationale, enable conclusions along the lines that the rent for property X would be relatively low per square foot, because X is a larger property than the comparables, according to the principle of balance.
Similarly, if one wishes to object to the inter-level circularity found in
inductive arguments for induction, the objection rests on the fact that a request for evidence that the conclusion of an
inductive argument is justified can never be satisfied so long as one pushes the problem one level back by using an inductive form of argument to "defend" induction.
The relationship between the premises and conclusion of an
inductive argument is characterized by probability, because some uncertainty is associated with the truth of the conclusion.
Horst is at his most pompous when ignoring the arguments of others, writing condescendingly, 'I applaud Papineau's intellectual honesty' (130) but he ingenuously offers no reply to Papineau's
inductive argument that the causal closure of the physical is reasonable to believe since no science invoking a nonphysical force has had any empirical success.
This argument is intrinsically an
inductive argument, as follows:
The former lacks textual support and is inconsistent with Hume's own use of induction; the latter cannot explain why Hume seeks to show that an
inductive argument for the uniformity principle cannot work.
An externalist can agree with Fumerton that if I attempt to provide a justification for induction by presenting an
inductive argument whose conclusion is that induction is reliable, then I will fail in my legitimating attempt.
It does not presuppose any particular position on the relation of induction to abduction, and it is unlike the old or new riddles of induction (see Goodman [1965]) because (i) it is empirical, not a priori, and (ii) in the limited form in which I defend it, the strength of the conclusion is not an invariant of the
inductive argument form.
It outlines Hume's skeptical critiques which show the
inductive argument form to be invalid, thereby generating the problem of induction.
