Skip to main content
34 votes

What fallacy is assuming something is the case because of past events

This is not a fallacy, just the old problem of induction. A case of hasty generalisation would be to conclude that the witness tends to lie, if you have observed it two times in a row.
Jishin Noben's user avatar
  • 1,008
33 votes

What fallacy is assuming something is the case because of past events

All informal fallacies take their force from their similarity to strong arguments. In this case, if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore we have good reason to disbelieve him on Day 20,"...
Chris Sunami's user avatar
  • 30.3k
22 votes

Is scientific method entirely based on statistics (statistical inference)?

Ernest Rutherford said: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment" which is deeply ironic, given that his subject (atomic/nuclear/particle physics) ...
Dikran Marsupial's user avatar
18 votes

What fallacy is assuming something is the case because of past events

I think I found something that comes close: Appeal to probability (Wikipedia) An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it ...
Zebrafish's user avatar
  • 461
18 votes

Is it a fallacy to argue "Once a thief, always a thief"?

I depends on what you mean by "being a thief". For example if you define being a thief as "having stolen at least once", then it's not a fallacy but trivially true, if you've ...
haxor789's user avatar
  • 6,782
15 votes
Accepted

Is it a fallacy to argue "Once a thief, always a thief"?

What kind of fallacy it is will depend on the underlying reasoning behind the statement. To lay this out as a valid argument, we need to dispel the assumptions. I think the natural read of this is: 1. ...
The Thought Detective's user avatar
12 votes
Accepted

Are "if smoke then fire" arguments deductive or inductive?

Such inferences are neither deductive (which assumes application of a valid inference rule) nor inductive (which assumes a generalization from a pattern of cases). This type of inference is called ...
Conifold's user avatar
  • 43.4k
10 votes
Accepted

Is there a deduction analog to the problem of induction?

When it comes to justification there is indeed a symmetric problem of deduction. But forming general opinions or laws is not part of deduction, it is abductive (or in older terminology inductive), ...
Conifold's user avatar
  • 43.4k
10 votes

Is scientific method entirely based on statistics (statistical inference)?

The experimental portion of the scientific method requires statistics. The model-building process, on the other hand, relies instead on mathematical formalism.
niels nielsen's user avatar
8 votes

What are the critiques of the "we might as well assume it" solution to the problem of induction?

Not all inductive inferences are temporal, so the future "resembling" the past can be moot, a more general idea would be that various parts of nature are "uniform", "resemble" each other. But it is ...
Conifold's user avatar
  • 43.4k
8 votes

Are "if smoke then fire" arguments deductive or inductive?

If the question is raised in an intro to philosophy course (like critical thinking or scientific reasoning), the answer should be that the above inference is an example of inductive logic. There are ...
Nanhee Byrnes PhD's user avatar
8 votes

Is it a fallacy to argue "Once a thief, always a thief"?

"Once a thief, always a thief" isn't an argument. It's a proposition, like "all men are mortal", which may be true or false. "Socrates once stole something; once a thief, ...
benrg's user avatar
  • 1,222
7 votes

Is it a fallacy to argue "Once a thief, always a thief"?

"Once a thief, always a thief" is a saying, not an argument If we want to turn it into an argument, there are a few possible interpretations: (among others) A "thief" is defined as ...
NotThatGuy's user avatar
  • 10.9k
7 votes

Is scientific method entirely based on statistics (statistical inference)?

I mean, yes but also no. Statistics is very useful for science, and philosophers have made attempts to formalise the process of science in terms of the logic of inductive inference etc. But in reality ...
Ben Farmer's user avatar
6 votes

Problem of Induction: Dissolved

Pointing out that induction is necessary for claims about the world doesn't actually resolve the problem of induction. At best, it shifts the problem from purely formal matter of reasoning to a more ...
Ted Wrigley's user avatar
  • 21.3k
5 votes

Is there a deduction analog to the problem of induction?

I typically present 'The Problem of Deduction' as a the following analogy to the better known 'Problem of Induction': One of the workhorses of deduction surely is Modus Ponens ... but why do we trust ...
Bram28's user avatar
  • 2,719
5 votes
Accepted

Is Goodman's new riddle of induction a restatement of Hume's problem of induction?

Goodman's claim is that Hume has missed the main point about how observing past examples provides confirmation of laws. To appeal to the uniformity of nature is either vacuous or false. The future ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 27.2k
5 votes

Does Popper's falsification view of the problem of induction have any implications for the NEW riddle of induction?

Goodman's new riddle of induction is old wine in new bottles. The substance behind the problem of induction is the following. People imagine that they arrive at theories by looking at evidence and ...
alanf's user avatar
  • 8,044
5 votes

What fallacy is assuming something is the case because of past events

In your analysis, there must be some intellectual problem with "disbelieving someone on Day 20 because they have lied every day previous to Day 20." I could split this into these parts: 1) Donald ...
elliot svensson's user avatar
5 votes
Accepted

Problem of Induction: Dissolved

The fact that we make inferences from sense experience is not the problem of induction as presented by David Hume. The problem of induction is to find a reason for those readily made inferences. Leah ...
Frank Hubeny's user avatar
  • 19.5k
4 votes
Accepted

Propositional Logic: How to prove the contraposition in the Fitch system?

1. p => q Premise 2. | ~q Assumption 3. || p Assumption 4. || ~q Reiteration: 2 5. | p => ~q Implication Introduction: 3, 4 6. | ~p ...
Am95's user avatar
  • 101
4 votes

What are the critiques of the "we might as well assume it" solution to the problem of induction?

Either the future resembles the past or it does not resemble the past. If it does not resemble the past, then all predictions about the future are equally reasonable. If the future does resemble the ...
Ram Tobolski's user avatar
  • 7,411
4 votes
Accepted

Why can't uniformity of nature (in principle) be proven deductively?

The quoted passage is part of an exposition of Hume's original argument. One of the previous paragraphs explains what "deductively" meant to Hume: "The deductive system that Hume had at hand was ...
Conifold's user avatar
  • 43.4k
4 votes
Accepted

Does Popper's falsification view of the problem of induction have any implications for the NEW riddle of induction?

Here is my understanding of Karl Popper and Nelson Goodman. Both talk about whether and when observations may corroborate a given hypothesis. Popper concludes that observations may falsify, but never ...
Mark Andrews's user avatar
  • 6,490
4 votes

How do I operate with philosophers if I reject deductive reasoning?

It seems you don't understand the terms. The essence of deductive reasoning: If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion ...
Dan Christensen's user avatar
4 votes
Accepted

Can all inductive arguments be written as deductive arguments?

...it seems that any inductive reasoning can be done with deductive reasoning by adding in some assumption that a particular pattern continues to hold. You got it exactly right. The assumption is ...
Mark Andrews's user avatar
  • 6,490
4 votes

Why is mathematical induction so applicable in mathematics?

First, let me recall some details for readers unfamiliar with the topic: The (classical) ω-rule intuitively says: if you can prove the sentence "P(n)" for each specific natural number n (...
Noah Schweber's user avatar
4 votes

Are mathematical proofs subject to the problem of induction?

Here are some thoughts: (a): "your conclusion that the proof is correct is contingent on your experience of the proof"- perhaps, but the proofs actual correctness is not, unless you believe ...
emesupap's user avatar
  • 2,452

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible