Inductive reasoning required for RE

Deductive reasoning, given true hypothesis and valid logic, yields a reliable conclusion. Inductive reasoning moves from specific instances to a general conclusion. Inductive reasoning is not guaranteed, it may often be right, but is at best a probability measure. Discoveries have been made by looking at many examples and drawing a conclusion, but to be "SCIENCE" that conclusion must be proven. I see induction as a possible guide and not proof.

It has been claimed to me that induction is necessary to prove RE.

Examples of something proved by induction that RE is based on?

Something like "all horses have shoes, john has shoes, john is a horse"? A basic logical error without which RE fails?

There are two things here to talk of; examples of something shown by induction that RE is based on - the answer here is just about everything. Any theory, for example. The Copernican principle. The validation of using empiricism in the first place.

Now, you would say this is just a matter of probability and that this somehow side-steps the issues with the problem of induction by making it a matter of probability. Unfortunately, this leads us to the same problems as justifying it by any other principle of induction.

Popper states it pretty closely to this: If a certain probability is to be given to statements based on inductive inference, then this will have to be justified by invoking a new principle of induction, modified to fit the situation. And in turn this one will have to be justified by another and so on, and we are again left with infinite regression.

So we are left where we started; more than this nothing is gained by swapping out the words "true" for "probable."

So sorry I said probability, don't want to argue that deductive reasoning is probative, it is not. I know of no RE claim based on induction.

From wikipedia: A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Not sure how what Copernicus has to do with anything. You can get the ideas you test by deduction, induction, or navel gazing. If they test out and match all related known facts and match calculated expectations, bingo. Banzene was figured out in a dream.

What is incorrect in a modern astronomy textbook?

What kludge is necessary?

The idea matches the observation matches the expected calculation matches other known related facts.

Kludge necessary for RE? Specific, please.

So sorry I said probability, don't want to argue that deductive reasoning is probative, it is not.

I assume here you mean inductive reasoning is probative. Deductive is clearly not.

I know of no RE claim based on induction.

From wikipedia: A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Not sure how what Copernicus has to do with anything. You can get the ideas you test by deduction, induction, or navel gazing. If they test out and match all related known facts and match calculated expectations, bingo. Banzene was figured out in a dream.

What is incorrect in a modern astronomy textbook?

What kludge is necessary?

The idea matches the observation matches the expected calculation matches other known related facts.

Kludge necessary for RE? Specific, please.

The Copernican Principle is based on induction. Using the results of Eratosthenes experiment to come to any conclusion that speaks to anything larger than that specific instance of gathered data is also inductive reasoning. Even saying your sextant will work as well today as it does tomorrow would be a use of inductive reasoning.