Slothful induction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

A slothful induction is a fallacy in which an inductive argument is denied its proper conclusion, despite strong evidence for inference. The opposite fallacy is the hasty generalization. An example of a slothful induction might be that of a man who has had twelve accidents in the last six months, yet keeps insisting that it is just a coincidence and not his fault.^[1]

References [edit]

^ Barker, Stephen F. (24 July 2002). The Elements of Logic (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-283235-5.

External links [edit]

Slothful Induction and Ad Hoc Escapism

v t e Informal fallacies

Absence paradox Begging the question Blind men and an elephant Cherry picking Complex question False analogy Fallacy of distribution (Composition Division) Furtive fallacy Hasty generalization I'm entitled to my opinion Loaded question McNamara fallacy Name calling Nirvana fallacy Rationalization (making excuses) Red herring fallacy Special pleading Slothful induction

Correlative-based fallacies	False dilemma Denying the correlative Suppressed correlative

Deductive fallacies	Accident Converse accident

Inductive fallacies	Sampling bias Conjunction fallacy False analogy Hasty generalization Misleading vividness Overwhelming exception

Vagueness and ambiguity	Amphibology Continuum fallacy False precision Slippery slope

Equivocation	Equivocation False attribution Fallacy of quoting out of context Loki's Wager No true Scotsman Reification

Questionable cause	Animistic Appeal to consequences Argumentum ad baculum Correlation proves causation (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc) Gambler's fallacy and its inverse Post hoc Prescience Regression Single cause Slippery slope Texas sharpshooter Wrong direction

List of fallacies Other types of fallacy Philosophy portal