Fallacies of Weak Induction

Fallacies of weak induction are fallacies where there is a weak connection between the premises and the conclusion. Inductive arguments are arguments where the conclusions are improbably true if the premises are true. In other words, inductive arguments are arguments where there is a possibility that the conclusion is false, even if the premises are true. Fallacies of weak inductions are based off inductive arguments where the conclusion is also false. Inductive arguments may sound reasonable, and at times they may even be correct, but there is a possibility of falseness in an inductive argument. Fallacies of weak inductions include falsities that result from inductive arguments. The types of weak induction fallacies include appeal to unqualified authority, appeal to ignorance, hasty generalization, false cause and slippery slope.

Fallacies of weak induction occur when the connection between the premises and the conclusion is weak. Although it may be somewhat similar to fallacies of relevance, the difference is that the premises may be seem more relevant (due to induction). A hasty generalization is one example of a weak induction fallacy. For example, a person may something like “Prison is where bad people end up. Good people don’t break laws, which is why good people don’t end up in prison. Therefore, all people in prison must be bad people”. To some extent, this may seem like a legitimate claim, after all, a prison is a place that houses criminals, and criminals are those convicted of some crime. However, this argument is a hasty generalization. Some people in the prison may be innocent, or falsely accused. Some people may have repented since their arrival and are now changed for the better. In other words, to say that all people in prison are ‘bad people’ is a hasty generalization, a fallacy of weak induction.