Of Generalizations, Sweeping Generalizations, and the Idiots Who Refuse to Respect the Difference Between Them

The word "generalization" may be defined as "a general proposition about the world, typically obtained from observation of the world, and perhaps even rigorous induction.

A "sweeping generalization" is a generalization which admits of no exceptions.

One may put the difference between them this way--where a generalization may admit of exceptions, perhaps significant exceptions, as by saying some aspect of the world that "It is usually like this," or even just that "It is commonly like this," a sweeping generalization says, if only implicitly, "It is always like this, every single time."

This means that one may much more easily refute a sweeping generalization than a "mere" generalization, because all they have to do is come up with a single counter-example to prove a sweeping generalization wrong. By contrast, to refute a regular generalization allowing of exceptions a single counter-example may be so inadequate as to be meaningless. Rather they would have to be able to produce evidence that no, it is not usually like this, no it is not commonly like this.

In short, the bar for the would-be debunker of the claim is a lot higher.

But idiots do like shooting their mouths off, and telling people they are wrong, and--as they never hesitate to make a "straw man" out of the other side's argument--are prepared to misconstrue a generalization as a sweeping generalization just so that they can trot out their one counter-example, tell the other party they "blew their argument out of the water" or some other similarly obnoxious thing, and feel smug.

If you are one of those who actually care about fact and reason, avoid such persons if at all possible (admittedly, a thing easier said than done as they are so numerous and aggressive).