Inductive reasoning can be quickly summarized as a method by which a conclusion is drawn from particular cases; this conclusion can be applied to another specific case or generalized. All our conclusions about the world around us, which we rely on daily without question, depend on this process. The expectation that our house will not collapse, that water will come out of the tap when it is turned on, that we will wake up the next morning, are all propositions extrapolated from inductive arguments. Hume in his work 'An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding', after challenging the possibility of knowledge of cause and effect, postulates that “The conclusions we draw from experience are not based on reasoning or on any process of understanding”. While it is true that there is no rational basis for accepting inductive reasoning, there is also no objective way to evaluate its validity. How do we evaluate which inferences are acceptable and which are not? If it is completely arbitrary, why do we instinctively reject certain inferences as incorrect? Perhaps the greatest effort that goes into induction is science. Its claim to pursue truth, empirical knowledge, depends entirely on the validity of inductive reasoning. As such, science has developed ways and means to ensure the validity of its conclusions; this includes randomizing samples, choosing appropriately sized sample groups, and using statistics to calculate whether something is merely possible or probable. Each of these methods (and there may be others) needs to be examined. If we consider appropriately sized sample groups, we need to ask ourselves how we define appropriate. If it's a particular ratio, that ratio should be... half the paper... which is why there can be a difference in the acceptable method of inductive reasoning when applied to myself versus when I apply it to someone else. When I consider a risk to my well-being, I am not bound by society's normative induction and can choose to take a greater risk if I wish and do not impose it on anyone else. I do not reserve the same freedom in assessing the risk to others. In conclusion, if we attempt to characterize good and bad inductive arguments, any chosen parameter will be exhausted and ultimately arbitrary. We must consider inductive logic as something relative and I feel I have found a context that makes it universal at least for its practical uses. As far as science is concerned, when we consider effectiveness in terms of application, the inductive method has proven empirically robust and is therefore welcomed by society.