Abstract

This paper aims to conduct a conceptual analysis of induction, starting with the issue of inductive ambiguities. We will argue that there are two equally valid approaches to addressing these ambiguities. By examining certain logical aspects of the two concepts of plausibility that emerge from these approaches, we can clarify much of the debate surrounding inductive ambiguities. Key to this analysis is the relationship between these notions of inductive plausibility and the concepts of paraconsistency and paracompleteness. Our exploration is grounded in a paraconsistent and paracomplete modal logic designed to address the fundamental elements of both approaches to induction. To illustrate the controversy and our proposed solution, we focus on a notable example of inductive inconsistencies: the lottery paradox.