The principle of induction cannot be justified by an appeal to logic. How, therefore, might the principle of induction be derived from experience ?
``Induction has been observed to work on a large number of occasions. For instance the laws of optics and planetary motion have been derived from disinterested laboratory experiment and astronomical observation, and have been used successfully to design optical instruments and predict planetary motion. This list could be greatly extended with illustrations of successful predictions and explanations made possible by inductively derived laws and theories. In this way, the principle of induction, and hence logical empiricism, is justified.''
This argument is flawed as it employs the very kind of inductive argument the validity of which is supposed to be in need of justification.
Note: An universal statement asserting the validity of the principle of induction is here inferred from a number of singular observation statements. Thus this argument is inductive. This is ``the problem of induction''.