Hello Brian and Davidius,
It strikes me that before this argument can be settled you two need to agree on what is meant by the proposition: "Induction is fallicious." Davidius seems to be using some type of definition along the lines: A reasoning process is
fallicious if and only if the conclusion does not provide absolute truth (when the premises are true). I (inductively) inferred this from his posts.
Brian seems to be using a definition along these lines: A reasoning process is
fallicious if and only if the conclusion does not provide enough warrant for a belief to be considered knowledge. Again, I am inferring this from what Brian posted. These two definitions are not the same, and as such you are talking past each other.
My opinion on the matter is that the term 'fallicious' in this type of context is the adjective of the noun form 'fallacy'. Fallicies in logic are classified as 'formal' and 'informal'. However, all informal fallicies are fundamentally based on some formal fallacy. All formal fallacies are argument forms such that if the premises are true it is not necessarily the case that the conclusion is true. All inductive arguments are fallicies of this sort. So, in this sense, one can say all inductive arguments are fallicious. Again, this is only to be understood in this sense.
Now, the problem with such a narrow definition is that the way we know premises are true mainly comes from inductive processess. Even our hermenutic and other processes we use to determine what Scripture says is mainly inductive. With such a narrow definition, then we would have to conclude that our reasoning regarding Scripture is fallicious. If we do not want to say this, then we need to adopt a less narrow definition for 'fallicious'.
Sincerely,
Brian