Talk:Proof by example

Valid proof?

I'm confused here. Proof by example isn't always fallacious. For example, suppose we have the property "Some P implies Q". To prove this, it suffices to give an example of a P that does imply Q. This is proof by example. Any statement that has the form "There is some x that has property P" can be proved by example. This article, however, only deals with the incorrect application of this otherwise valid proof. Should this be corrected? --BennyD (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should. It's merely a logical fallacy to use an example for "all X are Y", not at all for "some X are Y". --134.130.117.172 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This "proof by example" is often called "the converse fallacy of accident". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.29.209 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Convert to disambig?

It doesn't seem quite right to redirect this article to hasty generalization even though it should be merged there, because as noted above the phrase "proof by example" could have nothing to do with the fallacy. I've found a few (minor) sources in Google Books that relates proof by example to inductive reasoning and wikt:παράδειγμα (paradeigma). This has been tagged for references for 4+ years. Unless someone objects I'll make this a disambiguation page. —Mrwojo (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Problematic Example?

Hi, the page lists this example of this logical fallacy:

   I've seen nationalists harass immigrants.
   Therefore, nationalists must be harassers.

I don't know if I'm the only one who gets this impression, but this seems more than potentially offensive. Nationalism as an ideology has been responsible for an immense amount of human suffering over the years and this "example of a fallacy" reads almost like a defense, excusing the actions of past nationalists by alluding to some theoretical "harmless nationalists" who won't repeat the mistakes of their past co-ideologues. Nationalism as an ideology is intrinsically anti-immigrant in almost all its forms. As an immigrant myself, I'd rather not read something that comes off as a defense of chauvinists who see nothing wrong with perpetuating archaic and discriminatory ideas like nationhood. "Somewhat convincing" fallacy? This "somewhat convincing fallacy" is the lived experience of countless immigrants trying to leave their homes for a better life elsewhere. Maybe it isn't intended this way but it reads as a blatant excuse for the actions of nationalist terrorists. How would you like neo-nazis citing this to prove that their vile excuse for an ideology isn't intrinsically harmful? This is then followed by this juicy line:

   In the common discourse, a proof by example can also be used to describe an attempt to establish a claim using statistically insignificant examples.

Really? Featuring this right after what reads like a defense of nationalist almost directly implies that nationalists who harass immigrants are "statistically insignificant." Not to mention, this whole example was added to the article after the previous example was removed for being racist. Really Wikipedia? Something like this goes unnoticed for so long?

In today's political climate, I think it's hardly suitable to have something that encouraging to nationalists be featured on here. While I understand that "you shouldn't cite Wikipedia" and other similar excuses, as the largest free encyclopedia on the internet, we have a responsibility to create an inclusive climate for all minorities using this site. And this includes not featuring defenses of nationalism on an article that's supposed to be about logic.

I propose replacing it with a less offensive example. BobertBlack (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)