posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:21 AM
Deductive reasoning (in daily-usage language: Logic) can be used and controlled pragmatically by anyone familiar with its procedures, and shows
uniform results independant of the individual using it. Inside a very broad context, this is classed as 'objective'.
Inductive reasoning, whether it's by category, analogy or its other versions, depends on the contexts its user put things in; it can't be tested
pragmatically and the results depend on on the specific mindset of the user. This is classed as 'subjective'.
'Subjective' manifests in the context of systematic methodology as an extension of the user's ego, and has very small evidential value in contemporary
Any home-brewed systematic methodology making claims of logic procedures and outcoming evidential value, must first define its own parameters, axioms,
operational methodology and control methods, start from square one to demonstrate its functional validity, and test the outcome pragmatically, before
it can be considered housebroken.
Constructing a mish-mash of hijacked elements from already existing functional systematic methodologies, and pushing it as the real thing is totally
dysfunctional, and also an intellectual scam. Its ego-centered character and potential makes it popular amongst individuals motivated by whims,
predetermined answers or sensationalism.
Is that meat enough?
edit on 26-1-2011 by bogomil because: grammar and semantic