Slothful induction

Logical fallacy

Slothful induction, also called appeal to coincidence, is a fallacy in which an inductive argument is denied its proper conclusion, despite strong evidence for inference. An example of slothful induction might be that of a careless man who has had twelve accidents in the last six months and it is strongly evident that it was due to his negligence or rashness, yet keeps insisting that it is just a coincidence and not his fault.[1] Its logical form is: evidence suggests X results in Y, yet the person in question insists Y was caused by something else.[2]

Its opposite fallacy (which perhaps occurs more often) is called correlation does not imply causation.

References

  1. ^ Barker, Stephen F. (2002). The Elements of Logic (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-283235-5.
  2. ^ Bennett, Bo (2012). "Appeal to Coincidence". Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies (first ed.). p. 54. ISBN 978-1-4566-0737-1.
  • v
  • t
  • e
Common fallacies (list)
Formal
In propositional logic
  • Affirming a disjunct
  • Affirming the consequent
  • Denying the antecedent
  • Argument from fallacy
  • Masked man
  • Mathematical fallacy
In quantificational logic
  • Existential
  • Illicit conversion
  • Proof by example
  • Quantifier shift
Syllogistic fallacy
Informal
Equivocation
Question-begging
Correlative-based
Illicit transference
Secundum quid
Faulty generalization
Ambiguity
Questionable cause
Appeals
Consequences
Emotion
Genetic fallacy
Ad hominem
Other fallacies
of relevance
Arguments
  • Category


Stub icon

This logic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

  • v
  • t
  • e