Recently I was talking to a friend of mine, a vegan. Here's what she said: "I was talking to a vegan philosopher once, and he said that he is a vegan because there is no good argument against veganism". Now, my question is not about veganism in particular, but about the type of argument the philosopher used, which has the form:
There is no good argument against position X, therefore I believe that X is right.
But something tells me that this type of reasoning is fallacious. What the utterer really means is this:
No one has yet come up with a good argument agaist position X, therefore I believe that X is right.
Now, the problem becomes apparent: the fact that no one has ever come up with a good argument against position X does not guarantee that there really is none. It seems to me that the argument is inherently inductive.
Is this just really good old inductive reasoning in disguise? Also, let's suppose that by a "good argument" the philosopher really meant a valid and sound one.