Induc ve Fallacies

• Objec ves

• Introduc on

• Formal vs Informal Fallacies

• Deduc on vs Induc ve reasoning

• Induc ve fallacies

• References

Objec ves

This unit intents to help you iden fy fallacies associated with faulty induc ve
reasoning. We will proceed like the following. First we will de ne what is an
induc ve fallacy. Then we will list various induc ve fallacies with examples.

Introduc on

A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Though fallacies are instances of faulty

reasoning, they appear like a good argument and tempt us belief unsupported
conclusion. In order to guard oneself from faulty but seduc ve reasoning it is
important to study fallacies.

Fallacies can be classi ed into formal, informal and cogni ve. Formal
fallacies are associated with the errors in deduc ve reasoning while informal
fallacies are improper non-deduc ve reasoning. Cogni ve fallacies are not just
error in reasoning but are biases happening due to our cogni ve nature. In this
unit we discuss induc ve fallacies at length.
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
 2

Induc ve Fallacy.

While deduc ve reasoning guarantees absolute certainty to the conclusion,

induc ve reasoning only warrants it. Even the best induc ve argument could not
guarantee absolute certainty to the conclusion. Consider the following example.

1. All humans are mortals. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is a classic deduc ve argument. In this argument it is impossible for the

conclusion to be false while the premises are true. That means, if all humans are
mortal and Socrates is a human, then it is necessary that Socrates is mortal.
Contrast this argument with following.

2. All crows I have seen are black. Therefore, all crows are black.

I might have seen thousands of crows that are black. However, this doesn’t
suggest that all crows are in fact black. There may be non-black crows that I have
not no ced. Or there may be non-black crows in that part of the world which I
have not visited. Europeans once believed that all ravens are black because no
one has seen a black raven in the Europe. In fact, there were only black ravens in
the Europe. However, later it was found that there are white ravens in Australia.
This single instance of a white raven invalidated the inference that all ravens are
black even though it was built upon a vast array of experience. Any induc ve
argument, irrespec ve of its strength, can be falsi ed by a single counter
evidence.

Let us now think about the strength of the following argument: All ravens I have
seen are black. Therefore, all ravens are black. The number of ravens I have seen
are enormous however, we now know that the argument is false. Before loca ng
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
 3

the white ravens in Australia the above argument provided very god reason to
believe that all ravens are black. This exempli es one crucial nature of all induc ve
reasoning that it is possible for the conclusion of an induc ve argument to be false
even when all the premises are true. Let us list the feature of induc ve reasoning.

1. Induc ve argument supplies warrant. This means, it can only say that the
conclusion is highly probable.

2. Induc ve arguments never provide certainty to the conclusion

3. In an induc ve argument the conclusion can be false even when all the
premises are true.

Even though induc ve argument never supplies absolute certainty, we cannot live
without employing induc on. All generaliza on are induc ve arguments. Without
induc ve arguments, not only science but our daily life would not work.
Therefore, it is important that we must be able to discern the strength and
weakness of induc ve argument. An induc ve argument is strong when the data
up on which we rely is really representa ve of our domain. Errors arise when we
knowingly or unknowingly tamper with the base data.

Induc ve Fallacy or Fallacy of Defec ve Induc on

The fallacy of defec ve induc on is an informal fallacy that arises due an error in
induc ve reasoning. Like in any other informal fallacy, the premises of an induc ve
fallacy may be relevant to the conclusion. However, on a closer examina on they
will found wan ng.

1. Hasty Generaliza on.

2. Unrepresenta ve Sample
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 4

3. Appeal to Ignorance

4. Appeal to Improper Authority

5. False Cause

6. False Analogy

7. Fallacy of exclusion

1. Hasty Generaliza on or Converse Accident

Hasty generaliza on occurs when one employs a single (or a few) instance to draw
conclusions about the whole (or large many) cases. For example, consider the
following argument: My grandfather was a chain smoker but he did celebrate his
80 th birthday. Therefore, it is ridiculous to think that smoking is injurious to
health.

The problem in this argument is that it makes a (false) generaliza on from a single
instance. From studies we know that smoking is injurious to health and it causes
cancer. The argument men oned above is an example of hasty generaliza on.
Hasty generaliza on has the following structure.

1. S is a small sample of T.

2. S has the property P.

3. Therefore, T has P.

This fallacy happens only when the sample we employ to reason is a not a proper
representa ve of the targets system. To make this clear consider the following
general structure of induc ve generaliza on.

1. S is a sample of T.
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 5

2. Every element of S has the property P.

3. Therefore, every element of T has the property P.

The generaliza on becomes faulty when the sample S is not representa ve of T.

Some of the reasons for a sample to be non-representa ve are

a) S is too small.

b) The selec on the elements of S from T is not random.

c) There are biases in selec ng the elements of S from T

When S is a proper representa ve of T, we make correct generaliza on. For

instance, suppose that we are cooking rice. To know whether the rice is ready to
serve, we do not examine each and every rice grain in the vessel. We taste a few,
and make a decision about all the rice grains in the vessel. This is a valid
generaliza on. Even though our sample size is too small, the peculiarity of target
system T sanc ons our inference from a small sample. This means there are
excep onal instances of valid generaliza on from small samples. However, we
should be cau ous. Hasty generaliza on has taught us that excep on is not an
example. Hasty generaliza on is also known as converse accident because it is the
opposite of another fallacy (Accident) where a misuse of generaliza on happens.

2. Unrepresenta ve Sample/Biased Sample

Unrepresenta ve sample o en occurs in sta s cal reasoning. As we have seen in

the case of hasty generaliza on, the nature of the sample from which we make
our inference is very important in informal reasoning. In hasty generaliza ons,
reasoning from meagre amount of data is the error. On the contrary,
unrepresenta ve sample the problem is not just the size but the nature of the
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 6

sample. The problem here is that there are unrecognized biases in the selec on of
the sample. Hence, the sample does not adequately represent the target system.
Consider the following example, given by Darren Gulf in the famous book How to
Lie with Sta s cs. A house to house survey intended at knowing the magazine
readership in America once asked the following ques on: What magazine does
your house hold read? Once the results were nalized it appeared that a great
many people read Harper’s and not many loved the True Story. (Harper and True
Story are two popular American magazines). On the contrary, the publishers gure
unequivocally showed that the True Story had more millions of circula ons in
contrast with the thousands Harper’s had. The designers of the survey thought
that they asked the wrong people. But, the ques on has been asked in almost all
part of the country. Gulf suggests that the reasonable assump on to make is that
a lot many people did not give honest opinion. That means, even though the
sample has adequate size, it did not represent the truth because people lied. It
should be noted that the error is not hasty generaliza on. Rather the problem was
with the sample. It was a biased sample because of reasons that is not available to
us the people did not made their reading habit public. This means, the sample
collected did not represent the actual readership because of the bias in
respondents answer. Gu makes an interes ng sugges on. Instead of asking the
people what they read, the survey agency could have asked for old magazine.
People can only give away what they have bought. This could ensure correctness
of the sample. From this we could infer what they read. However, even this can
only suggest what people buy and not what they read because people can buy
something and chose not to read it!

Examples
ti
ti
ff
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
 7

1. The survey in the day me reveals that the 67% of the people enjoy soaps.
[Problem: The sample does not take response of the people who are not
present at house during the day (o ce workers for example).

2.

Another version of the biased sample is the fallacy of exclusion or cherry picking.
People o en tend to pick those data that favors their preferred conclusion. In such
instances, the data presented clearly support the conclusion. However, the data is
clearly a biased one and hence the inference from it is an error. This fallacy may
happen for various reasons. People are generally prone to pick examples that
favors their posi ons. This is a cogni ve bias. When it happens in this way it is
called con rma on bias. However, more o en than not, people purposefully
present data that favors only their conclusion and omit that which oppose their
view. Then it is called the fallacy of exclusion. It is extremely di cult whether the
fallacy commi ed is indented or not. The way out is to check all the relevant facts
before making a conclusion.

3. Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignoran am)

Appeal to ignorance is commi ed when employs the lack of evidence as a reason

for a conclusion. In other words, an argument for the truth (falsity) of a claim
because there is no proof to the contrary is an appeal to ignorance. This happens
in both a rma ve and nega ve ways.

1. A rma ve:
There is no evidence for X. Therefore, X is true.

2. Nega ve
ffi
ti
ti
ft
ffi
fi
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ffi
ti
ft
ti
ffi
 8

There is no evidence for X. therefore, X is false.

Example.

1. Science has not yet proved that aliens did not exist. Therefore, it is
reasonable to believe in them.

2. There is no evidence that reserva on actually enhances the social status of

Dalits. Reserva on, hence, is bad idea.

3. She has not sad that she dislikes you. Probably, she is interested in you.

4. Great people have been trying for centuries to prove the existence of God.
But no one has succeeded yet. Hence, God does not exist.

5. People have been trying to disprove the existence of god. However, no one
has been able to show it. Therefore, God does exist.

The argument from ignorance violates the general principle that of the burden of
proof is on those who puts forth a claim. For example, consider the argument:
God do exist and no one has disproved it. If you don’t comply, disprove it. Here
the arguer not only employs an argument from ignorance but also asks the
opponent to disprove it is she or he does not approve of the claim. It should be
noted that appeal to ignorance has some excep ons. For example, in from of law
everyone is innocent un l proven guilty. This means that the lack of evidence that
X is guilty is su cient to consider that X is not-guilty in front of law.

6. Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

This fallacy is commi ed when a claim is supported by appealing to the credibility

ffi
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
 9

and judgment of a person who is not an authority on the eld to which the claim
is made. This can also happen when appeal to made to uniden ed, or biased
authori es. Even though the opinion of people who are competent in a eld do
ma er, the ul mate judge in any ma er is the evidence but not the mere opinion
of people. The appeal to authority becomes sever when the support for X is
sought from people who are not an expert in X but in Y. For example, Stephen
Hawking was an expert in Astronomy. However, his opinion carries li le weight in
evolu onary biology. One of the best example of appeal to authority comes from
the history of science. When Galileo advocated heliocentric world view, he was
ques oned by the fact that the heliocentric view di ers from the Bible and Bible
as scripture was considered as the ul mate authority of truth. Galileo replied by
sugges ng that the holy Bible is not a text on Astronomy and hence, it ought not
be consulted for maters in Astronomy. The point Galileo was making was that the
Bible is an improper authority in Astronomy and hence an appeal to the Bible in
ma ers of Astronomy is incorrect. However, the then authori es did not comply
with Galileo.

Examples.

1. Among the people who feel that the anthropic principle deserves to be taken seriously,
are some very famous physicists and cosmologists with extraordinary histories of
scientific accomplishment. They include Steven Weinberg [2], Joseph Polchinski [3],
Andrei Linde [4], and Sir Martin Rees [5]. These people are not fools, nor do they need to
be told what constitutes good science. [Leonard Susskind, Physicist]. Explanation: It
should be noted that the people whom Susskind refers to are scientists and experts in the
field of debate. The problem, however, is that Susskind is support of the idea among
certain experts while the same idea being opposed by equally reputed scientists. One
needs independent reasons not just the support of experts to substantiate a claim.
2.
tt
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ff
fi
ti
ti
fi
tt
fi
 10

7. False Cause (Argument non Causa pro Causa)

Iden fying the cause-e ect rela on between events is an important part of
scien c methodology. False case fallacy occurs when two events causally
connected while there is no such connec on really exists. One may lead to
a ribute cause e ect rela on between two event for various. For example, the
recurring correla on between events are o en an indica on of causal connec on.
However, correla on alone is not su cient to establish a causa on. Therefore, it is
o en stated that correla on is not causa on. Tylor Vigen, in his book Spurious
Correla on, has listed a number very interes ng correla ons that do not amount
to causa on. For instance, the number of people who drowned by falling into a
pool correlates with Nicholas Cage appeared in. In this case it is easy to iden fy
that the rela on is a spurious. However, o en it is di cult to determine the falsie
cause fallacy. This fallacy can appear in any of the following forms. They are,

1. Cum hoc ergo proper Hoc

2. Post hoc ergo Propter Hoc

3. Slippery Slope

1. Cum hoc Ergo Proper Hoc: This fallacy occurs when one establishes causal
rela on merely on the basis of simultaneity of two event or event types.
This can happen in two ways:

a. Event C and E happened at the same me. Therefore, C is the case of

E.
tt
ft
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ft
ft
ti
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 11

b. Events of type C has always been accompanied by event of type E.

Therefore, E is the cause of C.

As we have discussed already, one may be lead to this fallacy by spurious

correla ons. For example, Rain in Delhi has always been correlated with a dip
in the barometer reading. Therefore, dip in the barometer reading is the cause
for rain Delhi. It should be noted that the dip in Barometer, (which in fact
indicated a decrease in the atmospheric pressure) is an indica on of possible
rain fall it (the di p in the barometer reading) is not the cause of rain fall.
Consider another example.

2. Post hoc ergo Propter Hoc: Post hoc fallacy occurs when once establish
causal rela on between C and E just because E has happened just a er C.
Literally, post hoc ergo propter hoc means, “a er this, therefore because of
this”. In other words, the recurrent temporal priority of an event C to an
event E is not a su cient reason to say that C causes E. this fallacy too can
happen in two ways. They are:

a. Event E happened immediately a er event C. Therefore, C is the

cause of E.

b. Event type E happened immediately a er event type C. Therefore, C

is the cause of E.

E.g. I had a chicken biryani Last night. I think, that caused my stomach ache.

Warning: It should be noted that there is some merit in post hoc reasoning.
For example, the biryani I had last night might have caused my stomach
ti
ti
ffi
ft
ft
ft
ti
ft
 12

ache. However, establishing that rela on requires further tests other than
the mere fact that I had a biryani last.

3. Slippery Slope: Slippery Slope occurs when a change in a par cular course
of ac ons is a rmed to cause further changes which will essen ally end up
with a grave consequence. It should be noted that by poin ng to the
undesirable consequence in future as the result of a change in the direc on
of ac ons, one intents to stop the changes up front. The point is that if we
change our course of ac on then that will put us into a slippery slope which
will nally end up with grave consequences. The general form of this
argument is: If A happens, then it will cause a series of events B, C, D etc.
which will end with Z. Z is an undesirable consequence and hence, Z should
not happen. Therefore, A should not happen.

Consider the following argument by the Addi onal Solicitor General (ASG) on gay
rights. The ASG submi ed that “This [right same sex] may encourage other forms
of sexual perversions such as incest, and rela onships within the ‘prohibited
degrees’ and between ‘sapindas’ which are restricted under the Hindu Marriage
Act (of 1955)”. The ASG is arguing that legalising gay sex would set us in a course
which will eventually result in undesirable ac ons like incest. However, the apex
court was not impressed by the ASG’s arguments. It suggested that “The
argument of the learned ASG that public morality of homosexual conduct might
open oodgates of delinquent behaviour is not founded upon any substan ve
material, even from such jurisdic ons where sodomy laws have been abolished.”

[Link] Analogy
fi
ti
ti
fl
ffi
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 13

Reasoning employing analogy is one of the important modes of informal/induc ve

reasoning. For instance, consider the famous liquid drop model of atom. This was
one of the rst models of nuclear structure. It suggests there are similari es
between a liquid drop and the nucleus of an atom. Therefore, it assumes that the
nucleus, like a drop of liquid, is spherical in shape. Also, there is a force,
comparable to the surface tension in liquid drop, that keeps the atom in its shape.
Employing this analogy, scien sts were able to explain many features of the
nucleus. It should be noted that this is an ad-hoc explana on and the prospects of
it are limited.

Reasoning employing analogy becomes fallacious when the similari es

speci ed between the two cases are meagre or insigni cant. The general
structure of a weak analogy argument is:

1. A is like B.

2. B has the property X.

3. Therefore, A has the property X.

fi
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti