| Slothful Induction |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Flawed Evidence
>
Slothful Induction
|
Logical Fallacy Slothful InductionSlothful induction is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The fallacy of slothful induction occurs when the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary. How is strong inductive argument defined? If there is any deductive evidence against an inductive argument, is the inductive argument still strong? If the inductive argument repeatedly must resort to just-so stories and other rescuing mechanisms, is the inductive argument strong? If the inductive argument cannot be confirmed by conclusive deductive investigation, is the inductive argument strong? Examples of the Logical Fallacy Slothful InductionSandy finds out that fossils of dinosaurs supposed to be millions of years old have soft tissue, blood, and DNA preserved in them. This appears to be impossible. Sandy considers that perhaps this may mean that they are not millions of years old, but then decides that there must be some unknown way to preserve soft tissue, blood, and DNA for millions of years. On the other hand, Roxanne sees that same evidence. Roxanne is a born-again Christian with a relationship with Christ, but an old Earth evolutionist. It has always bothered Roxanne that the Holy Spirit has prompted her that the Bible is the Word of God, without error, and God has spoken to her about the timeline of the Bible, the 6-day creation event, and the flood, yet she thought that scientific evidence was standing against the Bible, although she never saw any actual evidence other than the word of some textbooks and teachers. From time to time the Holy Spirit brought the problems with the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Biogenesis, and the Law of Universal Information, and realized that these, too, were strong inductive evidence supporting the Bible. She saw no deductive evidence against the Bible. And she considered the sound premise of revelation for the first time, “I know it because this is what the Holy Spirit is teaching me.” Because strong inductive argument was supported by sound deductive argument from Divine revelation, Roxanne made the very difficult decision to change her entire inner worldview/paradigm to one of Biblical accuracy. Over time, the various fallacies were exposed to Roxanne for every argument that had ever been given for the non-Biblical view and every rationalization that she had learned for compromising Scripture to conform to the reigning paradigm of most scientists. Sandy is guilty of the slothful induction fallacy. Roxanne begins in the same error but later changes her mind to more rational thinking. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionProof by Fallacy Evidence Surrogate Error in Observation Misrepresenting the Facts Distorted Evidence Unverified Evidence Hysteron Proteron Unsubstantiated Inference Assuming Facts Not In Evidence Wishful Thinking Appeal to Worldview Slippery Slope Limited Scope Mind Reading Shoehorning Confirmation Bias Sacred Cow Fantasy Projection Group Think Context Imposition Psychologist\'s Fallacy Amazing Familiarity Stolen Concept Weak Inference Proof by Theoretical Stories Anecdotal Evidence Dismissing All Personal Testimony Rewriting History Proof by Model Proof by Assumption Personal Incredulity Argument by Lack of Imagination Argument by Imagination Capturing the Naive Argument from Personal Astonishment Special Pleading Variant Imagization Self-Exclusion Unintended Self-Inclusion Ad Personam Proof by Repeated Assertion Cherishing the Zombie Argumentum Ad Lapidem Understatement Tautology Declaring Victory Assumption Correction Assumption Questionable Criteria Summary Dismissal Thought-Terminating Cliche Truism Perfectionist Fallacy Worst Case Scenario Fallacy Unwarranted Extrapolation Untestability Subjectivist Fallacy Bizarre Hypothesis Least Plausible Hypothesis Extravagant Hypothesis Privileging the Hypothesis Canceling Hypotheses Appeal to False Faith False Appeal to Heaven Inaccurate Models Hedging Politician\'s \"We\" Appeal to Nature Experimenter Bias Crucial Experiment Hearsay Ad Hoc Rescue Hindsight Bias Fallacy of the Beard Argument from Fallacy Inflation of Conflict Infinite Regress Reification Personification Superstitious Thinking Meaningless Question Proving Non-Existence Argumentum ad Imaginibus Statement of Conversion Outdated Information Argument by Laziness Alien Fallacy Quantum Physics Fallacy Fallacious Abstraction Appeal to the Unknown Grasping at Straws Pragmatism Fake Hope Appeal to Intuition Appeal to Mystery Argument from Design Untestability Imaginary Evidence Monopolizing the Question Fallacy of Antecedent Faulty Predictor Pretentious Antecedent Pretentious Premise Recently Viewed |
