What it is
Refusing the conclusion that a strong body of evidence points to.
In the wild
Ten straight failures, but this time will be different.
How to answer it
Ask what result would be enough, and note how many results have already passed it.
Evidence and sampling
Slothful induction
Also called Denying the evidence
In depth
Origin and naming
Named 'slothful induction' to mark the lazy mirror image of the hasty generalization: where one jumps to a conclusion on no evidence, this one refuses to land on one after plenty. Also called the 'appeal to coincidence' — each instance is waved away as chance. It is hasty generalization's stubborn twin.
More places it shows up
After the fifth contractor invoices late, the client still says each delay must have its own special reason — nothing to conclude here.
A fan base watches its team lose ten straight matches and insists every loss was a referee's mistake or bad weather, never the squad.
An employee has been passed over for promotion four cycles running and calls each decision 'office politics', never looking at the honest feedback.
A town keeps losing power every storm, and the council writes each blackout up as a freak event rather than the grid.
How to spot it
- Every single case gets its own bespoke excuse; no pattern is ever admitted.
- Ask 'at what count would you agree this is a pattern?' — the answer keeps sliding.
- The word 'coincidence' is doing heavy lifting, and it never pays the bill.