Logic Case study

Ricahrd : you think that both inductive arguments are equally reasonable, and that there's no sense in which X is objectively more similar to Y than Z, then you have no grounds for believing one conclusion rather than the other (e.g. that future emeralds will be green rather than grue). By the principle of metacoherence, you should be agnostic.

Lets say you believe
That if you think it is 'most likely they are equal' and possible they are not, and if not then X is similar to Y (maybe because it is more useful?).

So lets say X = Y = Z 70% probability
X = Y & Z not = Y 30% probability
So if asked if all arguments are equally reasonable then you should say “I think so” when asked ‘is it better to assume X=Y than Z=Y you say yes. Any distribution of probabilities achieves the same effect – so as long as you don’t have absolute certainty (which is impossible) then it is true.