Slothful Induction
Definition:
The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.
Examples:
(i) Hugo has had twelve car accidents in the last six months, yet he insists that it is just a coincidence and not his fault. (Inductively, the evidence is overwhelming that it is his fault. This example borrowed from Barker, p. 189)
(ii) Poll after poll shows that the N.D.P will win fewer than ten seats in Parliament. Yet the party leader insists that the party is doing much better than the polls suggest. (The N.D.P. in fact got nine seats.)
(iii) Sure that drug has been fatal in 100 previous tests, but how do you know some unknown factor wasn't present causing the deaths? Maybe the drug is perfectly safe. (This involves refusing to draw an inductive conclusion on the basis that some arbitrary assertion has not been disproven. This is the typical argument of a skeptic. They don't think they need any evidence to justify their rejection of any generalization no matter how much evidence points to the other conclusion.
Proof:
Make the relevant standard of proof clear, point out that the evidence offered does not meet it, and point out the contrary evidence not taken into account in the induction. Typically this will lead to either an agreement, a dispute over the applicability of the specified standard of proof, or the applicability of the contrary evidence. In each case the argument needs to be shown to be a rational one rather than some arbitrary choice.
I find that this kind of skepticism of any and all inductive generalization (except perhaps the ones the author is prejudiced in favor of) is the last refuge of most sloppy (and dishonest) thinkers since they can assert just about any possibility (yes, including that an omnipotant god is hiding the truth from us or that we are just brains in vats manipulated by mad scientists) to deny the validity of the inductive basis of the positions of their opponents.
References:
Barker: 189
Go back to Brian Yoder's Home Page