Inductive Fallacy

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 regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also a casualty of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

Inductive Fallacy occurs when any fallacy of inductive reasoning is committed. This is a very broad term that would include all inductive fallacies. Inductive reasoning can only suggest that something might be true or that it is possibly true. Most of the time, it would be inaccurate to say that inductive argument can deal with probability, except in cases where the question is very simple and the conclusion is very simple. When dealing with medicine, psychology, or claims about the past, the number of assumptions, variables, and elements lead to questions that are complex and difficult to nail down. The inductive fallacy specifically deals with claims that a certain premise would indicate a certain probability that a certain conclusion is true when it is unrealistic to claim that the premise would indicate that probability that the conclusion is true. For this type of reasoning, the word, “probability,” is a stretch of credibility.

Examples of the Inductive Fallacy

All statistical fallacies

When a chain of reasoning includes some deductive reasoning and some inductive reasoning, deductive fallacies impact the inductive reasoning. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link.