ABSTRACT
Induction is thought of as the kind of reasoning that is basic to the scientific method; the kind of reasoning by which, ultimately, all inferential claims about matters of fact must be justified. John Stuart Mill defines induction as the inferring of a proposition from other propositions less general; and this he contrasts with Ratiocination, or Syllogism. An inductive argument is never demonstrative, but at its best is only problematic; that is, the premises confirm or support the conclusion, they make it reasonable to believe the conclusion but do not entail it. Cleanthes' argument is an argument involving insufficient similarity between the items with regard to which the analogy is being drawn. An argument like that is said to commit the fallacy of petitio principii. Philo's argument was ampliative would be to maintain that Philo's conclusion expresses an empirical conjecture going beyond what his premises say.
