Ive been seeing it all to much lately (always really) on this forum and everywhere else, that people forgo rationality and choose logical induction
(inductive reasoning) over logical deduction (deductive reasoning), and the results that it produces are skewed versions of reality and false notions
about situations, the nature of other people / groups, and even entire concepts that have no semblance to reality and at times can be quite bizarre.
Im making this thread to put a little deconstructive effort to the issue, and break it down into some basics. Its a simple issue and a simple
deconstruction with easy to understand mechanics, but nonetheless it is not intuitive to some or maybe even most unless it is pointed out. Once
pointed out, its like a subliminal message has been revealed; theyll never be able to not see it again, unless they choose to be fooled...
...or are trying to fool you.
Basically inductive reasoning / logical induction is when conclusions about the whole (the general), are generated from isolated observations (the
This can be a good thing in some situations, and indeed it is the pre-programmed default mode of reasoning in all animals, including the human animal.
For survival, it is invaluable.
Example 1: You and your friend are chilling on the Serengeti, and a lion pops out and eats your friend. Your natural conclusion, logically induced
from the event you just witnessed, is that since just that one lion was a deadly threat, ALL lions are deadly threats.
Example 2: You are feeling daring one day so decide to lick your finger and it into a hot light socket. You get the shock of your life and knocked on
your rump. You naturally conclude from that single electrical faux pas that all hot light sockets are very dangerous, and very bad to touch.
Example 3: While lighting a candle youve recklessly put your finger over the fire, and you get burned. Natural conclusion: All fire is dangerously
hot, and must dealt with very carefully.
In all these examples logically inducing that the specific is indicative of the general is a sound move. In general, lions will eat you, all light
sockets are very dangerous to stick your finger into, and all fire, is in fact, very hot. There is no necessity to logically deduce
facts, and in fact doing so might very well prove fatal.
Logical induction / inductive reasoning is necessary for survival. It is there to avoid death and pain. When in fear of death and/or pain, the
instinctive brain screams "induce now, deduce later!", and in an innumerable amount of cases, it has saved many creatures lives.
But inductive reasoning in many cases is not so reliable, and in many others is simply downright not even remotely accurate to the reality of the
situation. In these cases it is very easy to draw incorrect conclusions, and TPTB, knowing all of our innate predilection towards logically inducing
conclusions about the whole based solely on specific and even singular events when those events are perceived as threats, uses this to shape the
opinion of a targeted demographic towards a certain end by releasing limited information, half-truths, biased reports, using emotionally evocative
keywords that are already associated with predefined conclusions, utilizing down right blatant lies, repetition, and perhaps the most powerful
technique employable, FEAR
A classic example: (supposedly) Muslims did 9/11, and it was talked about for years and years, all while blaming either overtly or covertly, Muslims.
Most in the US do not know any
muslims, so naturally out of fright and not even consciously, they default to using logical induction to
determine that since (supposedly) 19 Muslims were very dangerous, ALL Muslims are very dangerous.
This conclusion is patently incorrect to anyone who chooses to look at the situation critically. However, the faulty conclusion did serve a purpose
for the benefit of the PTB: they got nearly an entire nation to back their preplanned wars against predominantly Muslim nations through the incorrect
associatation that Muslim = threat.
I have never met a Muslim in my life that I am aware of, yet I still know with certainty that using inductive reasoning in this situation is absurdly
fallacious and unable to stand up to the slightest bit of objective, rational thought. The odds of a select 0.000000011875% (19 out of 1.6 billion)
being accurately representative of the 100% (1.6 billion) are incalculably small.
Looking at the situation from a deductive perspective, the only conclusion that could be come to IMO, is that NO conclusion can be drawn from the
information presented. There is simply not a large enough sample to draw accurate conclusions from. The sample is too small, and there can be no
reliable judgement made.
But deductive reasoning is not as natural as inductive. Inductive will save your life from a lion or a second severe electrical indiscretion, but when
applied to more complex situations such as the motives and nature of groups of people, cultures, and even entire nations, the results are usually so
skewed, they bear no actual resemblance to the reality as it is. A false mental framework is constructed that can be very hard to deconstruct.
And thats exactly
what TPTB count on when they present you with information via their propaganda outlets (news channels). They count on
you NOT thinking in a critical, logically deductive way to measure the weight of the words and insinuated claims to see if they stand up to scrutiny,
but count on you to logically induce that their cherry picked singular examples are indicative of the entire range of all possible examples in
whatever the given situation is at the time.
edit on 2/1/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)