Home » fallacy » Slothful Induction (i.e., Ignoring the Evidence)

Slothful Induction (i.e., Ignoring the Evidence)

Recent Comments

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 328 other followers


denialSlothful Induction (i.e., Ignoring the Evidence)

If ever there was a logical fallacy which seemed to epitomize intellectual dishonesty, it is this one: slothful induction.  Slothful induction is the fallacy whereby an inductive argument is denied its proper conclusion, despite strong evidence for inference.  If that still doesn’t quite make sense, let me explain in greater detail.

First, what is an inductive argument?  Simply stated, an inductive argument is one made from the available facts. In other words, like a detective at a crime scene gathering clues about the crime, an inductive argument builds to a conclusion by piecing together the details that support it.  It’s the “most likely” outcome – or inference –  based on what has been observed, tested, collected, etc.

Now back to slothful induction.  With this fallacy, one either willfully or through ignorance, refuses to accept what is most likely true in spite o the evidence presented.  It is an interesting naming convention in  that this logical fallacy gives the benefit of the doubt to the denier; which is to say that the denier is simply being “slothful” or lazy.

However, more often than not, the denier committing this fallacy is not lazy, but rather simply does not like the direction the evidence is heading.  She chooses to ignore it.  I sometimes call this the “sticking ones head in the sand” defense or to use more colorful language, the “keeping ones head up ones ass” defense.

A very good essay discussing the slothful induction fallacy can be found at The Illogic Primer.  Within that essay, there is a key phrase that caught my attention,

“Usually it (slothful induction) is a red flag that someone is not principally interested in the truth of a matter. And, because inductive arguments are at best probabilistic, not definitive, someone can always hold out against the preponderance of evidence.”

So if you find yourself in a debate where the evidence you are presenting is being ignored, what is your recourse?  You have very little to be honest.  You are in a debate with an individual who does not value evidence and reason, therefore you will not be able to use evidence and reason to influence the argument.

In the words of the great philosopher/poet Kenny Rogers, you have know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.  When faced with slothful induction, it’s best to walk away (or run).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: