In Defence of the Naive Inductivist: As Well as Some of Their Not-so-Naive Brethren

Alan Chalmers, in What ius this thing called Science?, presents inductivism as a naïve view of science which has been disproved. However, the arguments he bases this conclusion on either depend upon a stilted view of inductivism or affect a very broad range of positions, including Chalmers' own. I argue that a broadly inductivist view of science, including its observational base, is precisely the approach required.