Alifar commented on the post " Fire Always Burns? " and he raised a very interesting point. He wrote: 'Fire, as an entity, has a certain property that (we implicitly assume) is inherent in it. And that property is heat. Remove heat from fire, and we will get a flame that does not burn. This will, in a way, do away with the problem of induction, pro tem. Any phenomenon that we can classify, based on certain visible characteristics, under the broad hypernym of “fire” must necessarily, under certain arbitrarily set yet inflexible linguistic rules, possess the property of burning. That is, that which we call fire must necessarily burn or else we cannot call it by that name. For a layman, the argument runs as follows: “If it ain’t burnin’, then it ain’t fire.” ' Apparently, it seems to provide a solution to the problem of Induction, but i believe that it only tries to hide the actual issue, like shoving it under the carpet. The problem of induction is not a problem of pure