| Hasty Generalization |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Statistical Fallacies
>
Hasty Generalization
|
Logical Fallacy of Hasty Generalization / False Generalization / Glittering GeneralitiesHasty generalization 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 regress, 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. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The logical fallacy of hasty generalization / false generalization / glittering generalities occurs when a claim is made based on an incomplete or insufficient amount of evidence, which may include claims based on a sample too small to generalize for a population or a claim that something that is true for most of a population is true for all of a population. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Hasty Generalization / False Generalization / Glittering GeneralitiesThe idea that all religions are the same.
Attempts at correlating Genesis with the story of evolution. The Gap Theory as an explanation of the fossil record Theistic evolution as a way to make the Bible seem to conform to the scientific-sounding story of evolution. Stories about how duplication, mutation, and natural selection work together for evolution from one-celled creatures to human beings when no universal information (the kind of information that would need to be added for even the smallest evolutionary step) has ever been observed being added to anything by this means.
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise—it is a hasty generalization. Also, if this is used to try to prove that information is added to anything by natural means, it misses the mard on that as well, but that would be because of other fallacies.
This is an example of generalizing to molecules-to-man evolution from the tiny adaptations that are already built into the ability of the finches. It will be a rare evolutionist who will make the distinction between adaptation on molecules-to-man evolution, but we put in the clarity here to avoid talking about equivocation. Now, we have evidence that indicates that the genomes are not necessarily changed, but epigenetics are more likely in play. (Darwin's Finches) 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionMisused Statistics Innumeracy Clustering Illusion Bad Statistical Data Biased Statistical Method Biased Calculation Biased Conclusion from Statistics Biased Reporting of Statistics Loaded Statistics Generalizing from a Hypostatization Error in Sampling Avoiding Specific Numbers False Precision Self-Selected Biased Sample Statistical Apples and Oranges Ludic Fallacy Fishing for Data Base Rate Neglect Isolated Examples Small Sample Size Bias General Rule Fallacy Specificity Overwhelming Exception Stereotyping Sweeping Generalization Gambler\'s Fallacy Appeal to Possibility Appeal to Infinite Possibilities Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy Misuse of Averages Recently Viewed |
