ality between species and genus Hägerström later judges as being specifically metaphysical.260 And from this point of departureAristotle holds that the law of identity combines that which is categorically separated into one; for according to Aristotle essence is simultaneously the universal and the concrete,genus andspecies are one.And the genus andspecies of a definition are its unitary principle.261 In short, Hägerström’s account of Aristotle’s theory of knowledge concludes that it is contradictory. Aristotle attempted to reconcile these contradictions by the introduction of new terms rather than a redefinition and critical analysis of the original concepts.262 Hägerström’s critique of Aristotle’s theory thereby tacitly suggests a remedy similar to his own method of dealing with the problems of Kant’s philosophy, of which he uses Kant’s critical method, but rejects Kant’s transcendentalist results. The different characteristics of the two types of induction are important to point out since they affect the validity and universality of the inductive conclusions. Since enumerative induction is non-demonstrative it will never lead to conclusions and inferences that are necessarily and absolutely true, but on the contrary lead to conclusions that are contingently and relatively true - that is, conclusions that are more or less probable or reasonable than competing alternatives.263 In the case of enumerative induction, there are no deductive reasons to believe that past empirical obp a r t i 1 , c h a p t e r 4 118 260 Hägerström, Selbstdarstellungen, pp.15 and26-27;Marc-Wogau, Studier till Axel Hägerströms filosofi, pp. 58-59. 261 Hägerström, Aristoteles, p. 66. 262 Cf. ibid., pp. 73-82. 263 A Companion to Epistemology, Dancy and Sosa, eds., Induction: enumerative and hypothetical. There also exists a third type of induction which I have omitted, as it seems to be a special case of enumerative induction, so-called hypothetical induction, which uses prior inductions and deductions as its material, and from a hypothesis based upon prior inductions or deductions from prior inductions attempts to explain present evidence. 4 . 2 induct ive knowledge : absolute or re lat ive?