Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. The opposite, slothful induction , is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence ...
Persuasive definition – purporting to use the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term while, in reality, using an uncommon or altered definition. (cf. the if-by-whiskey fallacy) Ecological fallacy – inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs.
Hasty generalization often follows a pattern such as: X is true for A. X is true for B. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc. While never a valid logical deduction, if such an inference can be made on statistical grounds, it may nonetheless be convincing. This is because with enough empirical evidence, the generalization is no longer a hasty one.
They point out the similarity of the selection form to the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which the refutation of an opposing position that is weaker than the opponent's is claimed as a refutation of all opposing arguments. Because they have found significantly increased use of the selection form in modern political argumentation, they ...
Inductive reasoning refers to a variety of methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a set of observations. [1] [2] Unlike deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion is certain, given the premises are correct, inductive reasoning produces conclusions that are at best probable, given the evidence provided.
The fallacy can take many forms, such as cherry picking, hasty generalization, proof by assertion, and so on. [1] The fallacy does not mean that every single instance of sense data or testimony must be considered a fallacy, only that anecdotal evidence, when improperly used in logic, results in a fallacy.
As the great Tom Waits once sang, in a tune that is all taunt, “Perhaps you were a little — hasty, hehehe.” Perhaps a lot of us were. Perhaps a lot of us were.
[16]: 147 The generalization, in this case, ignores that insanity is an exceptional case to which the general rights of property do not unrestrictedly apply. Hasty generalization, on the other hand, involves the converse mistake of drawing a universal conclusion based on a small number of instances.