In this paper I argue that the debate over the purported distinction between deductive and inductive arguments can be bypassed because making the distinction is unnecessary for successfully evaluating arguments. I provide a foundation for doing logic that makes no appeal to the distinction and still performs all the relevant tasks required of an analysis of arguments. I also reply to objections to the view that we can dispense with the distinction. Finally, I conclude that the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments is not one of the most important and fundamental ideas in logic, but rather is unnecessary.

Document Type


Publication Date


Publisher Statement

Copyright © 2002, Informal Logic. This article first appeared in Informal Logic: 22:1 (2002), 1-17.

Please note that downloads of the article are for private/personal use only.