fallacy of denying induction as logical method without good reason.

Not sure if my first post transferred, so here it is again.

"INDUCTION MAY BE A NECESSARY THOUGHT PROCESS AND NO DOUBT IT PLAYS A ROLE IN THE FORMATION OF SOME GENERALIZATIONS.  BUT IT IS NOT A LOGICAL PROCESS. THERE IS NO NECESSITY THAT THE NEXT OBSERVATION WILL YIELD THE SAME RESULT AS THE PREVIOUS ONES, NO MATTER HOW CONSISTENT AND NUMEROUS THEY HAVE BEEN."

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE  

 BY MIRAN EPSTEIN

definist fallacy

The level of intellectual power measured less than Brand Blanchard, but the above fallacy shocked me as it was so obvious.

generalizations come from induction (or found in retroduction); it is a process; the process is logical; and observations support a strong or weak conclusion;  whether other observations are consistent need not be relevant. So I call this Definition Retreat fallacy, equivalent to the one one above.  I had little hope to find one this bold -- yet, there it is!

Rob Temple

I don't see a question anywhere in there, but I assume you are looking for confirmation.

I do have a problem with the idea that induction is "not a logical process." As you point out, it depends on what definition of "logical" is being used. Often, people use "logic" and "reason" interchangeably in casual dialog, which is fine. Induction may not have anything to do with the laws of logic, but it is an extremely important part of the reasoning process. As for the rest of the quote, I don't have a problem with it. The author is stating what most of us here might see as the obvious— with induction, there are no guarantees .

Overall, I really don't have an issue with the quote. "Not logical" is not the same as "illogical," so if the author meant "not a strict logical process in that it doesn't comport with any of the rules of logic," then I am okay with it. Perhaps the text before or after the quote would offer some clarity to the author's intention.