This fallacy arises when someone refuses to draw the right conclusion from a known pattern; the statement “despite overwhelming evidence” indicates that this error is about to get the commitment. Their inability to accept what is most likely true is frequently due to either a lack of concern for the truth or a vested interest in their perspective. You’ll learn all about slothful induction. In addition, we will define a logical fallacy as well as formal and informal fallacies and examples of slothful induction.
A logical fallacy is a reasoning error that reduces the effectiveness and persuasiveness of your argument. And you want to be able to identify these fallacies in other people’s arguments (as well as your own) so you can correct them or change your strategy.
When an argument does not sufficiently support it, it is a logical fallacy. This can be due to logical mistakes, a lack of proof, the usage of irrelevant points by the author, or other reasoning movements that do not logically support the argument. Advertisers, salesmen, politicians, and others may attempt to manipulate you by employing logical fallacies.
There are two kinds of logical errors: formal and informal.
This fallacy is a faulty deductive argument. It’s a pattern thinking process that is always incorrect. The logical framework of a formal fallacy is always flawed. As a result, it is also a logical fallacy. The premises do not support the conclusion in a formal fallacy. Because the deduction is incorrect, there is no logical argument.
An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning detected in the argument’s substance. The error in informal fallacy, unlike formal fallacy, is not in the form or logic of the argument. Informal fallacies sometimes entail the use of unnecessary information in arguments or the use of information based on assumptions that subsequently turn out to be erroneous. They are common in regular talks and come in a variety of forms. They frequently rely on linguistic and evidentiary misinterpretations.
What is the Slothful Induction Fallacy?
The slothful fallacy arises when individuals neglect facts or evidence and rely on their assertion or claim on irrelevant or fortuitous circumstances. Even if there is a study or obvious evidence to support a certain assertion, the individual who succumbs to the slothful induction fallacy fails to identify or acknowledge that claim. The ‘appeal to coincidence fallacy’ is another name for this fallacy.
The converse of the hasty generalization fallacy is slothful induction. This fallacy arises when there is sufficient logical evidence to strongly suggest that a given conclusion is valid, but someone refuses to admit it, instead attributing the outcome to chance or something completely unrelated.
The Principles of Slothful Induction
The following two steps in slothful induction are:
There is substantial evidence that A leads to B.
Instead, it is claimed that B is the result of something else.
Egoism or self-serving bias is the primary cause of slothful induction. It should seek anytime an argument gets advance despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Focusing on the evidence is essential for avoiding a slothful mistake. If a probabilistic inference on the frequency or another quantitative measure of an event, establishing that measure ahead of time may avoid the fallacy from taking root in a posteriori analysis. Another often-used detector that removes egotistic or self-serving biases is independence.
Examples Of The Slothful Induction Fallacy
These are some examples of the fallacy of slothful induction. The following examples can help you better comprehend the slothful induction.
- Imagine you are the CEO of a firm and you have established a new policy that has enhanced staff productivity. You even polled the staff on the new policy, and virtually all agreed that it had boosted their job involvement and quality. However, the company’s owner disputes acknowledging this reality, claiming that the workers’ increased job involvement is attributable to chance rather than the execution of the new policy. The slothful induction fallacy is being used by the company’s executives.
- Assume a person has been involved in more than 10 car accidents in the last six months. This guy is reckless and does not know how to drive correctly, according to one interpretation. But this guy refuses to confess it; instead, he claims that the incidents occurred due to the negligence of others and are not his responsibility.
- Sure, that drug has proved lethal in 100 previous tests, but how do you know it wasn’t caused by an unknown factor? Perhaps the drug is completely safe.
- In the last six months, Jim has been dismissed from seven different jobs. He claims that it has nothing to do with him or his skills and that he has simply been unfortunate. Even if such terrible luck is feasible, it is quite improbable that Jim’s dismal track record has nothing to do with him. The evidence (Jim being terminated seven times in six months) suggests that Jim has a lot of opportunities for development as an employee.
- Even if every project Brad has supervised in the previous two years has fallen behind schedule, I believe we can blame it on unavoidable circumstances rather than his project management abilities.
The Ending Note
It is difficult to spot logical fallacies in everyday thinking, yet slothful induction is relatively easy to identify than others. Like other psychological phenomena varies greatly between individuals and is difficult to recreate. Slothful induction only applies to big and intricate situations. Smaller ones closer to deduction are harder to dismiss even for the ego.
The slothful induction fallacy is when people neglect considerable evidence and base their claims on a coincidence or something completely unrelatable. There is a study or information that reveals that something is true in this type of argument. This may or may not acknowledge the person presenting the argument.