I’m sorry to say you’ve lost me there. What do you mean by “identification”? Do you mean re-identification of the same objects over time? When we engage in inductive inferences, the reidentification is taken for granted—the conclusion of the inference quantifies over the same objects as appeared in the premises, otherwise the induction would be fallacious.
By identification, I’m talking about the mental process of determining what objects “are” (door, cat, cup, ice, etc). Not just the label but the entire meaning that comes with that label. I have this thing in my room that’s located near one of the corners and it has a “cutout” in the wall and it has hinges and a thing to turn to allow the object to move, it gives access to another room- it’s a “door”. Identifying a thing as a door clearly brings a lot of presumptions before getting to the final conclusion of “door” (what doors are for, where they come from, what variations they might come in, etc).
So I’m saying that prior to being able to do this type of identification or distinguishing of objects from other objects (rather than everything just being a blob of meaningless chaos), we invoke inductive inferences to allow an organization and categorization of objects/events from objects/events.
Further, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that sacrificial offerings were rational. Surely, nobody ever had sufficient reason to perform an animal or human sacrifice.
I’m sorry for not being very clear. All I’m saying is that primitive tribes had basic premises that were assumed or come to in some irrational manner, but once those premises were accepted as “true”, then the sacrificial offerings did follow as logical. In that same way that if you honestly believe the bible is the “word of god”, then arguably it follows that there was a garden of eden. But I’m not saying that a belief in the garden of eden is rational.