34

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.


32

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," that is a perfectly good argument (assuming it isn't suppressing other relevant information). But if you say "This boy lied 19 days in a row, therefore what ...


20

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 would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case). and An appeal to probability argues that, because something probably will happen, it is ...


12

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 abductive, or "inference to the best explanation", see abductive reasoning. "Clearly" indicates that the explanation inferred is the best available. According to ...


9

For induction you need to define a rule of how to go from n to n+1. You fail to define a rule of how to go from {Germany, Berlin} to {Germany, Berlin, San Fransisco}. The rule could be: Add San Fransisco to the set. Of course you can't use that rule to prove that there's an infinitive amount of cities. Your rule could be: Add a city that's not already in ...


8

The reason why argument by analogy could be called invalid hinges on a technical definition in formal logic. Viz., "invalid" means not attaining to formal validity either in sentential logic or one of the many types that depends on it (e.g. deontic logic, modal logic).Thus, the following argument is invalid: (1) If Japan did not exist, we would not have ...


8

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 two kinds of inductive reasoning. One is generalization, as Conifold suggests. But there is also an inductive inference of John Stuart Mill whose purpose is to ...


8

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), when it comes to science it is the "hypothetical" part of the hypothetico-deductive method, see Are “if smoke then fire” arguments deductive or inductive? for more ...


7

Hume challenged other philosophers to come up with a deductive reason for the inductive connection. If the justification of induction cannot be deductive, then it would beg the question. To Hume, induction itself, cannot explain the inductive connection. Wittgenstein's early account of causation in TLP follows Hume in rejecting the idea of causal necessity. ...


7

Your inductive step is Given a list of cities, I can always give a new city that is not on the list. and I would say this is false. It is just not true that one can clearly come up with yet another city no matter how many cities I have thought about. As this premise is false the induction does not give a the correct answer (though the argument itself ...


7

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 not logical to assume that the future will "resemble" the past, or that the nature is "uniform" in this or that aspect. In many cases such assumptions are ...


6

Deductive arguments aren't non-falsifiable because arguments aren't either true or false. Deductive arguments are either sound, valid but unsound, or invalid. Here's an example: (1) All men are mortal. (2) Socrates is a man. (3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. It's only the conclusion, or one of the premises that could meaningfully be said to be ...


6

Inductive inference. All humans have died so far, therefore (in all likelihood) all humans die at some point. You are human, I take it, so there you go.


6

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 embodied matter of cognition. The problem of induction is a problem of forecasting. We have a stream of experiences that we have lived through encoded in memory....


5

You can see in SEP The Problem of Induction Also : Ian Hackintg, An introduction to probability and inductive logic (2001) Also : Dov Gabbay (editor), Inductive Logic (volume 10 of Handbook of the History of Logic, 2011). Clearly (for me) the problem of induction has not been solved yet (as all interesting philosophical problems ...). Human being has a ...


5

What you are noting is that the definition of "sane" (also "intelligent", "athletic", "reasonable", etc.) are not so much defined recursively as they are questions of social comparisons of behaviour. Some of these are defined in terms of being similar to a perceived norm (where 'norm' is interpreted in a vaguely statistical sense, i.e. what one can expect ...


5

how does induction relate to falsifiability, and when does one trump the other? Inductive Reasoning is the traditional tool of the Empiricism epistemology. Falsifiability or testability is Popper's criterion for demarcating scientific knowledge from everything else. Perhaps a better formed version of your question would be: How does classical Empiricism ...


5

From my understanding, I do not think (please do correct me otherwise) that Goodman claimed to have "defeated" the old problem. Rather, all he did was add to it, further questioning induction. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (an excellent resource), the Problem of Induction is an ancient one, generally involving people questioning the value ...


5

Your induction draws from a set of city names. However, you have failed to show a proof that there is an infinite number of city names (and that all those cities exist). This is like saying... I ate one potato chip from the bag. I ate another potato chip from the bag. There are still more potato chips in the bag. Therefore there are INFINITE POTATO CHIPS! ...


5

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula that is true in every possible interpretation. – Wikipedia There is an 'interpretation' possible in which snow does not melt during the day in the Sahara / a human lives without oxygen / photons have no mass. That is because these statements can only be verified with a posteriori ...


5

The author is using the term "strong" for inductive arguments as an analogous concept to the term "valid" for deductive arguments. Remember that the definition of validity (at least the one generally used in introductory courses) is that an argument's form is valid if it is the case that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion. This, in turn, ...


5

Consider we had 4 separate things, A B C and D. We do some experimentation on three characteristics we are interested in, x, y, and z. We find the physical evidence leads us to the following independent assumptions: A exhibits x A exhibits y A exhibit z B exhibits x B exhibits y B exhibit z C exhibits x C exhibits y ...


5

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 always resembles the past in some respects and does not resemble it in other respects. The important question is which predicates are projectible and which not. ...


5

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 drawing conclusions from it. But a collection of observations doesn't imply anything at all about the future. So conclusions reached by current evidence may not ...


5

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 lied to me each day for 19 days straight up to yesterday. 2) Donald said something to me today, and wants me to believe it in spite of the past 19 days of lies (...


5

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 Henderson describes the problem of induction as follows: Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive ...


4

Or perhaps he would say that Grue Theory isn't really falsifiable and therefore isn't a scientific theory until it can be falsified. But it's difficult to see how Grue Theory is different than, say, General Relativity which waited several years for the technology needed to produce definitive tests of the theory. Popper's Falsifiability criterion is ...


4

One easy, and perfectly general, such premise X is: All A are x From this premise one can deductively infer that all A are x, unsurprisingly. One problem with this maneuver, of course, is that we have no better evidence for the extra premise than we have for the conclusion -- both being the same proposition. Therefore, as it is sometimes said, there is ...


4

At a bare minimum, you only really need predictability according to any function. This need not be the identity function f(x) = x which says that whatever you measured before will be the same later, or any other particular function. There are some things that will sink the attempt: The function must not change with time so fast that your error in ...


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