Flori-cal linear induction tube

This is a fantasy super high speed rail deep underground which makes it possible to travel from florida to california in 3 hours! The inspiration for this idea comes from donald fagens early '80s hit single "I gy this verse specifically: 'on that train all graphite and glitter under sea by rail 90 minutes from New York to Paris well by :76 we'll be a-ok! What a beautiful ❤️ world 🌎 this will be what a glorious. Time to be free!'

We caught the
Flori-cal linear induction tube at noon in Miami and 3 hours later we arrived in San Diego at noon local. We went to the zoo then caught a bite to eat at horton plaza and made it in time for an 8pm curtain at the San Diego Opera
It let out at 11pm so we made it back to the station for some drinks then we caught the 2am local flori-cal for a 3 hour ride back to Miami and arrived there at 8am local time!

by 4realazitgits April 17, 2021

Induction process

A process where a human goes to a place, and receive information in various parts of the body with various random rays of electricity and becoming a hero. For doing this, you need to be in underwear called induction briefs. And be scanned by an x-ray, and receive these information screaming "A-a-a!!" Every time. Then, the main hero accessory (e.g. a Miraculous) will activate a suit on with light, and the anaesthesia will go away when the suit was given.

I love the induction process of Green Lantern!

by Seemscott February 25, 2022

Fallacy of Impossible Induction

The mistaken belief that because complete induction (examining every case) is impossible, no inductive conclusion can be trusted. This fallacy rejects all generalizations on the grounds that we haven't examined every instance—ignoring that induction works by sampling, not census. It's the logic of "you haven't read every book, so you can't say books exist," of "you haven't met every French person, so you can't generalize about French culture." The fallacy of impossible induction is beloved of those who want to dismiss well-supported generalizations by demanding impossible standards of proof. It's a cousin of the perfect knowledge fallacy, and just as paralyzing.

Fallacy of Impossible Induction Example: "She cited studies showing the benefits of exercise. He responded with the fallacy of impossible induction: 'But you haven't studied every person who ever exercised. How do you know it works for everyone?' She said science doesn't require studying everyone; it requires representative samples. He said that wasn't proof. She said that was how proof works. He remained unconvinced, which was his right, but also his loss."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026

Fallacy of Exhaustive Induction

The mistaken belief that only exhaustive induction—examining every possible case—can establish truth. This fallacy rejects all probabilistic, statistical, or sampling-based reasoning as insufficient, demanding certainty that is rarely available and never necessary. It's the logic of "you can't prove all swans are white until you've seen every swan," ignoring that science doesn't prove in that sense. The fallacy of exhaustive induction is the mirror image of the fallacy of impossible induction: both set impossible standards, one by rejecting induction entirely, the other by demanding a form of induction that's rarely possible. Together, they form a pincer movement against any empirical claim.

Fallacy of Exhaustive Induction Example: "He demanded exhaustive proof that climate change was real: 'Have you measured every temperature reading everywhere on Earth for the last hundred years?' No, because that's impossible. But you don't need exhaustive proof; you need representative proof. He demanded the impossible and therefore rejected the possible. The fallacy had done its work: blocking belief with an unmeetable standard."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026

Slothful Induction Fallacy

The logical fallacy of rejecting a well-supported conclusion despite overwhelming evidence, usually because accepting it would require uncomfortable changes or challenge cherished beliefs. It's the inverse of hasty generalization: hasty induction jumps to conclusions with too little evidence; slothful induction refuses to reach conclusions despite ample evidence. Classic in climate denial, vaccine skepticism, and any domain where evidence conflicts with identity.

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree, and the evidence is overwhelming, but I'm just not convinced." That's Slothful Induction Fallacy—refusing to draw the conclusion that all available evidence points to. At some point, skepticism becomes denial, and evidence becomes irrelevant."

by Dumu The Void February 28, 2026

Inductive Sophism

The use of inductive reasoning in bad faith—demanding inductive certainty where none is possible, or dismissing inductive conclusions for not being deductive. Inductive Sophism treats probability as failure, patterns as insufficient, and statistical evidence as worthless because it doesn't provide certainty. The sophist exploits the gap between induction's strength and deduction's certainty, demanding that inductive arguments meet deductive standards—an impossible task. It's sophistry about reasoning: using the limits of induction to dismiss all inductive conclusions.

"The evidence strongly suggests the policy works—90% success rate across dozens of studies. 'But that's just induction,' he said. 'Not proof.' Inductive Sophism: demanding deductive certainty from inductive reasoning. The standard was impossible, which was the point. No evidence would ever be enough because he'd already decided induction doesn't count."

by Dumu The Void March 8, 2026