What is the so-called "Inductive Fallacy"?


I’m glad somebody is awake !
The way one-liners are used and evolve on this forum can be very annoying.

Also what does all this have to do with deductive reasoning, how is this in ‘error’. Are we seriously going to consider that modes ponens is wrong tomorrow. You can’t even give me an argument against it without using it somewhere.

Hello One And All!! :smiley: I’m back to say hello!

I got this pesky job, and I’ve been way too busy, but I thought I would chime in on this whole “inductive fallacy” question. I’ve re-read the links to the previous threads and have an update:

From my previous discussions I’ve adopted two things:

One, that if “everything” is “subject to the inductive fallacy”, I consider it a waste of time to use it in determining “strong or weak proof”; and

Two, in the “eating one’s own tail” department, I mused that the inductive fallacy would be false via the inductive fallacy! Since everything is subject to the inductive fallacy, so is the inductive fallacy argument proved false. Neat.

The belief that “beliefs can have strong or weak proof to back them up” remains strong to me. :stuck_out_tongue:


I’m sorry i haven’t read this whole post, but i suspect there are two problems at the heart of it.

First, “induction” means taking all species of a genus, proving something true of all species, and therefore something is true of their genus. What seems to be discussed on this thread is trying to do that with particulars, not species.

Second, doing this with particulars resembles something else called “abstraction” which is the mind’s power of forming a universal from enough particulars. We all do it, and to deny we do it seems simply counter-intuitive.

Rag me.

my real name