| Falsified Inductive Generalization |
Falsified Inductive Generalization FallacyFalsified inductive generalization occurs when a class is defined too narrowly to omit certain members that are removed to make a point about the class. This is a form of circular reasoning. It occurs when a wide abstraction (such as scientists) is restricted to a narrow set of particulars (only those scientists who believe in the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story) and then it is concluded that an attribute of these particulars (the scientists without the thousands who reject the story) must be definitive of the abstraction (scientists), thus negating the entire principled structure underlying the abstraction (scientists are people who do science: observe, record, make conclusions based on observations, etc.). Falsified inductive generalization looks a lot like the no true Scotsman fallacy or the frozen abstraction fallacy. It is one of the ways that a term can be defined too narrowly, and it is a persuasive definition fallacy. The no true scientist fallacy is a type of this fallacy that has become very popular among zealots of the Secular Humanist religion. Falsified inductive generalization is the counter fallacy to package dealing or equating opposites. Falsified inductive generalization omits part of a class. Package dealing and equating opposites fallacies include things that are not part of the class. Examples of the Falsified Inductive Generalization Fallacy
Bill Nye repeatedly committed the falsified inductive generalization fallacy during this effort to eliminate Creation science.
Sandy is committing the logical fallacy of falsified inductive generalization. He is doing this based on presuppositions that include Naturalism, Materialism, and Evolutionism.
This is another example of the logical fallacy of falsified inductive generalization. Sandy makes his assertion based on assumptions. Rocky defines the "person" class based on Divine revelation. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionStacking the Deck Ambiguity Effect McNamara Fallacy Head in the Sand Suppression of the Agent Fading Affect Bias Unteachable Selective Refutation A-Priorism Audiatur Et Altera Pars Ignoring Historical Example Overlooking Secondary Consequences Uncontrolled Factors Missing Link Moving the Goal Posts Gravity Game Demanding Impossible Evidence Unfalsifiability / Untestibility Invincible Ignorance Argument from Ignorance Ad Ignorantiam Question God of the Gaps Argument from Silence No True Scotsman No True Scientist Fallacy of Opposition Frozen Abstraction Argument from the Negative Accident Fallacy Reverse Accident Best-in-Field Abductive Fallacy Denialism Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification Very Simple Answer Reductionism Taboo Fallacy Recently Viewed |
