Slothful Induction

The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary. For example:

"Frank says he was robbed of the match at the tournament, even though the punched the opponent in the face three separate times."

Fallacy of Exclusion

Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence." For example:

"A Taekwondo student got beat in a street fight last night." (The information left out is that he was attacked by four opponents."

Page 2 of 2: NEXT Back First Last | Share | Errors | Last Modified:

Subtopics: NEXT | Preface Distraction Appeals To Motives Changing Subject Inductive Statistical Syllogisms Causal Missing Point Ambiguity Category Errors Non-Sequitur Other Types

Topic: Comments: Add View | Sources | Related: None

Homepage