I will begin the talk by briefly discussing a (naive) "relevantist" argument against classical deductive logic. I will explain (Harman-style) why this epistemologically motivated argument fails, and why no "nearby" argument will succeed. Then, by analogy, I will argue that Goodman's "grue" argument against "classical" inductive logic (mainly, Carnapian inductive logic) fails for analogous reasons. Indeed, I will argue that Goodman's "grue" argument against "classical" inductive logic is even less compelling than the relevantist's argument against classical deductive logic. The analogy with deductive logic will also reveal several other interesting (and hitherto under-appreciated) features of Goodman's "New Riddle" (and, more generally, of the relationship between inductive logic and inductive epistemology).