On Induction: Time-limited Necessity vs. Timeless Necessity

This paper defends David Armstrong's solution to the problem of induction against Helen Beebee's attack on that solution. To solve the problem of induction, Armstrong contends that the timeless necessity explanation is the best explanation of our observed regularities, whereas Beebee attempts to demonstrate that the time-limited necessity explanation is an equally good explanation. Allegedly, this explanation blocks Armstrong's solution. I demonstrate that even if the time-limited necessity explanation were an equally good explanation of our observed regularities, this explanation does not block Armstrong's solution. I argue that, in fact, the timeless necessity explanation is a better explanation of our observed regularities than is the time-limited necessity explanation.