Podcast #128: We chat with Kent C Dodds about why he loves React and discuss what life was like in the dark days before Git. Listen now.
33

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 ...


19

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 ...


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

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 ...


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 (...


4

...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 the Uniformity Principle. Some philosophers have accepted the principle as supported by common observation; others have dropped wet blankets all over it. ...


4

This isn’t an exact fit, but the logic here is similar to the Hot Hand Fallacy. Because something has occurred frequently in the past, it in some way informs likely future events, with the assumption events will continue to transpire in the same way. It’s not a perfect fit, as the Hot Hand Fallacy specifically concerns streaks of successes making people ...


3

Whenever we make some claim about the world, the phenomena, whatever you want to call it, we necessarily draw from our immediate and past experience, i.e. we engage in any act of induction in the most general sense. That's why there is no problem of induction, its necessary to any knowledge in the first place. If you define induction as "absolutely any ...


3

It is not the case in general that inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning from a hidden premise. In particular, the idea that a series of observations that instantiate some pattern can be projected or extrapolated over unknown cases by appeal to a general principle of the uniformity of nature does not hold water. The principle of the uniformity of nature ...


2

Whenever I see inductive arguments being used, it seems as though they can be redone by simply making certain assumptions and rephrasing the argument as a deduction from those assumptions. For example, in this Khan Academy video, Sal says that if you're predicting the population of a town in the future based on the past, that's inductive reasoning. ...


2

Here is the question: What criteria of recursive definitions should a rational person accept as valid? For example, should I accept a recursive definition if it has an empty proven base? Wikipedia describes recursion as follows: In mathematics and computer science, a class of objects or methods exhibits recursive behavior when it can be defined by two ...


2

This isn't quite a fallacy, but what you're talking about is likely caused by Apophenia. From the Wikipedia page: Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. [...] Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling. [...]...


2

You may be looking for the Illusory truth effect. The illusory truth effect (also known as the validity effect, truth effect or the reiteration effect) is the tendency to believe information to be correct after repeated exposure According to Fazio L. et al: Repetition makes statements easier to process, relative to new statements, leading people to ...


2

Consider the 'Availability Heuristic', Under the availability heuristic, people tend to heavily weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased toward that latest news. More broadly, it could be considered confirmation bias We are primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our preconceptions


2

It would help if you were to clarify whether you are being asked what Hume's position was, or what you think about Hume's argument. Assuming the former: In Hume's day, it was common to use the word 'inductive' as complementary to deductive, making 1 true. This is no longer common, however. Abductive inference, for example, is neither, although some ...


2

Your setup and experiment are analogous to the following more general scenario: Suppose you want to provide evidence for the claim that all As are Bs. To do so, you design an experiment that only ever looks at Bs, and willfully ignores anything that isn't a B. If you find a B that isn't an A, no big deal; this doesn't contradict your hypothesis that all As ...


2

@helios- In your question you make the following statement and it Represents an assumption whose merits are typically not questioned. That's why there is no problem of induction, it's necessary to any knowledge in the first place What follows is a response to that assertion, about induction being 'necessary to any knowledge'. In this Excerpt HF Hallett ...


1

Any commentator on 17th- or 18th-century philosophy is likely to have problems with the concept of an 'idea', which is many-ways ambiguous - often in the same writer. Descartes In the Meditations Descartes distinguishes three kinds of ideas: 1.Innate (ideae innatae) 2.Adventitious (ideae adventitiae) 3.Invented by myself (a me ipso factae) In ...


1

@speakpidgeon- Will add to the comments section in order to respond to your question concerning 'first principles'. But first, you asked to see what Spinoza has to say about knowledge, and so here are two Notes to Proposition XL Ethics Part 2- On the Nature and Origin of the Mind. "Nevertheless, in order not to omit anything necessary to be known, I will ...


1

The problem of induction as a basis for knowledge is that new facts we discover may, and very often do, contradict our past inductive inferences. We are thereby forcibly led to accept, again and again and again, that we didn't know what we thought, and often vehemently asserted, that we knew. Thus, we can only inductively infer that we don't really know ...


1

...there is no problem of induction, it's necessary to any knowledge in the first place. There is a difference between making one observation of one event, and drawing a generalization after observing a series of similar events. The first (one event) requires an understanding of human perception, but not of induction. In the second (generalization), ...


1

This sounds like a HW question, so you need to edit your question to contain your argument for finding answers 3 and 4 correct, so that instead of just giving you answers, you are forced to defend your reasoning and learn from the question. This also seems to be a duplicate post here. It would help to keep in mind that deductive inference is that which has ...


1

The confusion here comes from assumptions that are perhaps implicit in the statement, but not explicitly spelled out. We need to break down exactly what is meant by I need water. What is missing here is why you need water. The complete statement here is obviously, "I need water to live". Or even more precisely, "I need x liters of water every t seconds to ...


1

Here are dictionary definitions of the term "imply" as used in the context of logical arguments: "To involve by logical necessity". Or "to suggest or involve as a necessary consequence". Being hungry obviously doesn't imply that food exists. It might, at least in principle, if you could at all include in the premises of your argument the entirety ...


1

Deduction and induction are not about observation, but certainty in inference. It may be tempting to define deduction as moving from general to specific claims, and induction vice versa, but this is not entirely accurate. Let's take an example to show the difference between deduction and induction. DEDUCTION: If a man is in a kitchen, then he is in the ...


1

This sounds like Gambler's fallacy, a "reverse" version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Reverse_position Namely, believing that the coin is more likely to land on one side if there was already a tendency towards that side in the past.


1

The problem of induction discovered by the Scottish philosopher David Hume is quite well known. Induction is allegedly a process that starts with observations, uses them to derive a theory and then shows the theory is true or probable or good or something similarly vague. The problem of induction is that such a process is impossible. Any set of observations ...


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