Logical errors can occur in inductive reasoning due to insufficient evidence, leading to fallacies such as hasty generalization, exclusion, and oversimplification. It’s important to identify and avoid these fallacies in arguments.
Logical errors are errors of reason that can occur in inductive reasoning. As inductive reasoning moves from the particular to the general, it is important to determine the amount and type of evidence needed to make a valid argument. Lack of proper evidence is linked to different kinds of logical fallacies.
Since logic is one of the main techniques used in persuasion, it is important to be able to identify and discount logical fallacies in other people’s arguments and to avoid making them in your own arguments. One of the things that can undermine logic is basing an argument on insufficient evidence. There are several fallacies that can be made in relation to insufficient evidence when choosing evidence to support an argument, and the following fallacies of insufficient evidence occur frequently enough to be named.
Hasty generalization. A hasty generalization bases a conclusion on too little evidence. An example is: this winter was colder than last winter: the weather must get colder. This is a logical fallacy of insufficient evidence because more evidence of a change for a year is needed to establish a climate trend.
Exclusion fallacy. Leaving out evidence that would lead to a different conclusion is called the fallacy of exclusion. An example is: In the 2000 and 2005 presidential elections, Florida went to Bush, so it must be a Republican state. In fact, the 1996 evidence, which I purposely excluded from the sentence above, shows that Florida went Clinton in that election, making that too a fallacy of insufficient evidence. By choosing to start with data from 2000, I was able to rule out evidence that contradicted the conclusion I wanted to draw for this exercise.
Oversimplification fallacy. In this fallacy, some, usually more subtle, aspects of a problem and their ramifications are not explored. An example is: the question of funding medical research boils down to this: do we want to heal the sick and help the wounded heal, or not? This argument ignores questions of sources of funding, different research statuses in different areas of health care, and so on, so it falls into the category of insufficient evidence. By avoiding reference to any complexities, including the possibility that some issues may never have a positive resolution, this argument makes it appear that the choice is all about goodwill towards the less fortunate.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
