Induction is not perfect, but it seems to work well enough that I'd need to be given a good reason to throw out such a simple and effective inductive conclusion.
Explain how you inductively reach the conclusion "other people exist independently of perception".
when I have lots of evidence and reasons to think he is wrong.
Tell me about your evidence and reasons for the existence of 'other minds'. This should be good.
Actually, non-solipsism posits that with this many moving parts, each one is at least somewhat distinct, whereas solipsism posits that each and every one of these parts somehow depend on a single mind to exist.
No idea what you're trying to say here.
Ceteris paribus, there are fewer steps to think that the world is as it seems rather than positing that it is all actually illusion.
Solipsism is fully consistent with the belief that the world is as it seems since there do not seem to be any minds except my own.
Solipsism doesn't claim everything is an illusion -- that is a straw man. Solipsism is simply the claims that there is nothing external to one's present experiences.
That's begging the question.
No it's really just simple math. An ontology that embraces 'other minds' must posit the existence of 7 billion additional entities in addition to their own mind. The solipsist is one who recognizes that there is no need to make this kind of expansion to their ontology since other people are fully describable in terms of sense-experience.
If you have a car, and see something else that looks and acts like a car too, why would you think anything other than "there is another car"? What reason is there to think "that is my car too"? I should not have used parismony, because the two explanations are not of equal likelihood.
Sorry but I don't really understand how this analogy relates to the problem of other minds. Please clarify.