Slothful induction
| Part of the series on |
| Key articles |
| General logic |
| Bad logic |
Slothful induction, AKA "Appeal to Coincidence", is a fallacy in which an inductive argument is denied its proper conclusion in spite of strong evidence.
An example of slothful induction is when Anti-evolutionists often ask for "proof" of evolution, and are triumphant when none is forthcoming. This is perfectly reasonable for science to do — after all, no scientist can even be certain of what evidence will come up in the future that may contradict the current theory. Yet those of the anti-science movement who cling to this detail usually fail to hear the words put in place of "proof" — overwhelming evidence.
To counter such hogwash that absolute deductive proof is required for the conclusion to be reasonable, one can use Reductio ad absurdum. Take the statement "Gravity has always existed, so gravity will continue to exist." The conclusion ("it (gravity) will continue to exist") cannot be 'proved', however every time we observe the world we see uniformity in nature and so it's reasonable to assume that gravity will continue to exist. So if someone denies inductive argument even if it has a large body of evidence, merely because induction can't 'prove', then they can walk of a cliff.
Slothful Induction's fallacy has a polar opposite fallacy called the Hasty generalization fallacy[wp] in which the evidence is insufficient.