Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
He argues that the problem of induction only arises if we deny the possibility of a reason for the predicate, located in the enduring nature of something. [17] For example, we know that all emeralds are green, not because we have only ever seen green emeralds, but because the chemical make-up of emeralds insists that they must be green.
Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. [1] [2] This article is concerned with the inductive reasoning other than deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the ...
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. The opposite, slothful induction , is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence ...
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident, jumping to conclusions) – basing a broad conclusion on a small or unrepresentative sample. [55]
Non-deductive reasoning plays a central role in everyday life and in most sciences. Often-discussed types are inductive , abductive , and analogical reasoning . Inductive reasoning is a form of generalization that infers a universal law from a pattern found in many individual cases.
Scottish philosopher David Hume first formulated the problem of induction, [12] arguing there is no non-circular way to justify inductive reasoning. That is, reasoning based on inferring general conclusions from specific observations. This is a problem because induction is widely used in everyday life and scientific reasoning, e.g.,
An argument from anecdote is an informal logical fallacy, when an anecdote is used to draw an improper logical conclusion.The fallacy can take many forms, such as cherry picking, hasty generalization, proof by assertion, and so on.
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4