Counter-Induction Fallacy

the counter-induction fallacy 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 Counter-Induction Fallacy occurs when a conclusion is thought to be supported by the opposite of what inductive reasoning would suggest. While you cannot positively prove something by inductive reasoning, it is irrational to become dogmatic about something when all the inductive evidence is against it.

Examples of the Counter-Induction Fallacy

"Although the Universe and all life appear to be designed, we must resist the temptation to think that they are, since these things all came into being by natural processes."

"Although we know that no energy or matter is created or destroyed, at one time there was nothing. Nothing became compacted very small, smaller than a period on the end of a sentence. Then it exploded and became everything. This is science."

The complexity of God’s Way understood in a single diagram

Obey your flesh and descend into darkness

How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question

Counter-Induction Fallacy

Examples of the Counter-Induction Fallacy

Other Pages in this section

Recently Viewed