Induction Fallacies

INDUCTION FALLACIES
WHAT?
• Argument in which premises still relevant but are not enough or
biased, or weak
List of Induction Fallacies
• Generalization
• Hasty generalization
• Generalisation from an exceptional case
• Accident
• Weak analogy
• Mistaken appeal to authority
• Mistaken to popularity
• Fallacies related to cause and effect
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (=After this, therefore because of it)
• Overlooking the Possibility of Coincidence
• Overlooking a Possible Common Cause
• Overlooking the Possibility of Random Variation
• Overlooking the Possibility of Regression
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (=With this, therefore because of it)
• Overlooking the Possibility of Reversed Causation
• Slippery slope
• Untestable explanation
Hasty generalization
• Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a

sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or too small).
Stereotypes about people (“librarians are shy and smart,” “wealthy
people are snobs,” etc.) are a common example of the principle
underlying hasty generalization.
Eg:“My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I’m in
is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!”
(Two people’s experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base
a conclusion.)
• A biased sample is one that is not representative of the target population.
• The target population is the group of people or things that the generalization is about.
• Hasty generalizations can often lead to false stereotypes.
I’ve hired three business majors as student help in the past year. All three were lazy and
shiftless. Obviously all business majors are lazy and shiftless.
• Generalizing from exceptional case
• Eg: Bill Gates dropped college and he was still successful. So why do I
need to go to college?
• Tip: Ask yourself what kind of “sample” you’re using: Are you relying
on the opinions or experiences of just a few people, or your own
experience in just a few situations? If so, consider whether you need
more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion. (Notice that in
the example, the more modest conclusion “Some philosophy classes
are hard for some students” would not be a hasty generalization.)
• Eg: Ressearchers have found that adults who have been abused or
neglected in childhood become addicted to social media. (fallacy)
(…are more likely to become…/tend to/ in many cases/ at higher risks
of…)
Weak analogy
• Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more

objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared
aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and
the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
Eg: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could
be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the
purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally
ridiculous.”
• Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you’re making,
and see whether the two things you’re comparing both share those
properties.
• This fallacy generally follows the pattern:
• A has characteristics w, x, y, and z.
• B has characteristics w, x, and y.
• Therefore, B probably has characteristic z, too.
• But characteristics w, x, and y are not relevant to z or
• A and B have differences relevant to z which are ignored by the arguer.
Appeal to authority
• Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to

respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the
issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree
with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by
appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert,
we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.
Eg. “We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such
as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.”
Ad populum
• Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means “to the people.” There are several
versions of the ad populum fallacy, but in all of them, the arguer takes advantage
of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that
desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most
common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince
the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does
Eg: “Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!” While the opinion
of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it
certainly doesn’t determine what is moral or immoral: there was a time where a
substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was
not evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree with
the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.
Fallacies related to cause and effect
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (=After this, therefore because of it)
• Overlooking the Possibility of Random Variation
• Overlooking the Possibility of Regression
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (=With this, therefore because of it)
• Overlooking the Possibility of Reversed Causation
False cause/ correlation is not causation
• False cause: assuming that because one event happened after (or
around the time as) another that is was caused by the other
• In assuming that one event causes another, the person committing
this fallacy can overlook:
• -coincidence
• -a common cause
• -random variation
• -regression to the mean
Post hoc
• Latin phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which translates as “after
this, therefore because of this.”
• Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of
course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that
comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and my name later
appears on the roll, it’s true that the first event caused the one that
came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time
aren’t really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn’t the
same thing as causation.
• Eg: “President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went
up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.”
( The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime
rates, but the argument hasn’t shown us that one caused the other.)
• Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some
explanation of the process by which the tax increase is supposed to have
produced higher crime rates. And that’s what you should do to avoid
committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes B, you should have
something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came first
and B came later.
Cum hoc
• Latin phrase “cum hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which translates as “with
this, therefore because of this.”
• Definition: Assuming that because A and B happen at the same time,
A caused B.
Eg:
• Hospitals are full of sick people. Therefore hospitals make people sick.
• He sometimes behaves violently when I am around him. I don't know
what it is that I am doing to make him become so violent.
Slippery slope
• Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually

ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there’s really
not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if
we take even one step onto the “slippery slope,” we will end up
sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can’t stop
partway down the hill.
• Eg: “Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don’t respect life, we are
likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society
will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end
of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal
experimentation illegal right now.”
Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet
ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won’t necessarily take place. Even
if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces respect for life, and loss of respect for
life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may be the spot on the hillside at which things
stop—we may not slide all the way down to the end of civilization. And so we have not yet
been given sufficient reason to accept the arguer’s conclusion that we must make animal
experimentation illegal right now.
• Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say “if A, then B, and if B,
then C,” and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.
Untestable explanation
• Fallacy in which that it cannot be tested, even in principle.
• Example(s)
He has heart issues because of sins done is a previous life.
The crime rate has gone up because of general moral decay.

Induction Fallacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Induction Fallacies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Induction Fallacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDUCTION FALLACIES

• Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a

• Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more

• Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to

• Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually

The crime rate has gone up because of general moral decay.

You might also like