 Rather than "validate" enumerative induction—the futile task of showing it a deductive inference—Herbert Feigl as well as Hans Reichenbach, apparently independently, sought to "vindicate" it by showing it simply useful, either a "good" or the "best" method for the goal at hand, making predictions.Feigl posed it as a rule, thus neither "a priori" nor "a posteriori" but "a fortiori".Reichenbach's treatment, similar to Pascal's wager, posed it as entailing greater predictive success versus the alternative of not using it.