ABSTRACT
Any traditional, internalist epistemology must come to terms with the question of non-deductive inference. In our case, the problem of defending non-deductive inference is particularly urgent since we are debarred by our own scruples from taking some of the more popular positions on this topic. We cannot appeal to an inductive justification of induction without running afoul of epistemic circularity; we cannot reduce the problem of induction to the meliorative project of giving epistemic advice without erasing the distinction between success and rationality, losing what is distinctive to internalism. If we are to have any hope of retaining induction as justificatory, there is no alternative for us but to tackle Hume head-on and argue that induction, which C. D. Broad memorably described as ‘‘the glory of science’’ and ‘‘the scandal of philosophy,’’1 is defensible a priori.
