Lets discuss deductive logic..

Hey all. I'm interested in discussing deductive logic. It seems like this is a concept lost on most and it seems lost to a lot of board members here. First....

What is deductive logic?

Deduction: In the process of deduction, you begin with some statements, called 'premises', that are assumed to be true, you then determine what else would have to be true if the premises are true. For example, you can begin by assuming that God exists, and is good, and then determine what would logically follow from such an assumption.

What were talking about here is the axiom of your ideas. To me this means that i am combing through my ideas and getting down to the roots of my beliefs. My true will or my true wills purpose. At least thats how i look at it. What is at the heart of this idea? Is the basic premise of my idea able to tell me something about myself?

For example... if i believe that poor people are just lazy scumbags, what is at the heart of this idea and is it something i dont like about myself being projected onto others?

Ok forget the details of the argument it may not even be a good example but im trying here people cut me some slack.

Have at it.

I want to add more but i think the conversation will help.

a reply to: onequestion In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same validity as the initial assumptions. We use inductive reasoning to gain a big, generalized conclusion and use deductive reasoning to gain additional facts to support our existing conclusions.

a reply to: onequestion

You suggested:
"For example... if i believe that poor people are just lazy scumbags, what is at the heart of this idea and is it something i dont like about myself being projected onto others?"

Then you suggested that it was a poor example... I agree, especially so when you want to deal in logic. I would suggest that the more logical reason for some people think the poor are just lazy scumbags, has more to do with the self-esteem (even if bloated) of the observer than with a personal hated of self. You know, you example just doesn't make sense unless you want to promote a PC progressive liberal approach. You don't do you?

a reply to: machineintelligence

Ahhhh yes. Like coming up with an idea and then checking how valid it is?

a reply to: onequestion

Isn't that the stuff, when good at it that make good decision makers?

They know, some are just to busy deflecting.

Deductive reasoning is only limited by our ability/desire to see things from a different perspective. Using the example that you provided for instance. If I " believe" that ALL poor people are lazy scumbags ...then I have a very narrow view of life. Their are many types of poor people in the world and some of them are VERY industrious people and yet for one reason or another they are trapped in their own poverty. Just as their are some wealthy people that would not seem fitting for earthly success.

Harry

Inductive reasoning was/is necessary for the survival of man-kind. If a man with blue war-paint appears from a copse of trees and some men with blue-warpaint are part of a nearby, warlike tribe then we must quickly assume the man is a threat in order to survive.

Deductive reasoning is a higher form of logic, however, it is only useful if someone has the time to make the proper calculations and the necessary facts are available.

We aren't allowed to examine evidence and come to conclusions based on the evidence here in America. We have to accept interpretations that are given to us by people who profit by their interpretation and who's science is backed by the government's policies. Only scholars who are trained to think a certain way can do the interpretations.

Any interpretations made outside the scope of accepted principals will be discounted, attacked, or ignored. We are supposed to parrot what we are told. If we believe something different than we are considered skitzo or have a number of other psychological diseases. Ad Hominum practices rule, learn to use them or face humiliation.

Now what was this thread supposed to be about? I think I need a cup of coffee.

originally posted by: rickymouse
We aren't allowed to examine evidence and come to conclusions based on the evidence here in America. We have to accept interpretations that are given to us by people who profit by their interpretation and who's science is backed by the government's policies. Only scholars who are trained to think a certain way can do the interpretations.

Any interpretations made outside the scope of accepted principals will be discounted, attacked, or ignored. We are supposed to parrot what we are told. If we believe something different than we are considered skitzo or have a number of other psychological diseases. Ad Hominum practices rule, learn to use them or face humiliation.

Now what was this thread supposed to be about?

I think I need a cup of coffee.

Yes, the "intellectuals" define the premises which much be accepted as true. They define those who may disagree, even before the disagreement, as being cretins.

Then when somebody disagrees with the originating premises, just their mere disagreement is "proof" they are a cretin.

a reply to: Jamie1

This is exactly the type of emotional drama im trying to address.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: rickymouse
We aren't allowed to examine evidence and come to conclusions based on the evidence here in America. We have to accept interpretations that are given to us by people who profit by their interpretation and who's science is backed by the government's policies. Only scholars who are trained to think a certain way can do the interpretations.

Any interpretations made outside the scope of accepted principals will be discounted, attacked, or ignored. We are supposed to parrot what we are told. If we believe something different than we are considered skitzo or have a number of other psychological diseases. Ad Hominum practices rule, learn to use them or face humiliation.

Now what was this thread supposed to be about?

I think I need a cup of coffee.

Yes, the "intellectuals" define the premises which much be accepted as true. They define those who may disagree, even before the disagreement, as being cretins.

Then when somebody disagrees with the originating premises, just their mere disagreement is "proof" they are a cretin.

This is why most people just say screw it and drink when they get to a certain age.

In school they teach the young stuff they will probably never use in their life, even the teachers will tell them they will probably never use what they teach in real life. Kids do listen. But to question the direction of the teachings is not acceptable even when the teachers are wondering why we are heading in the direction we are going. Who chooses the content of the books in schools anyway.

I was just talking about this to my granddaughter, her boyfriend, and her boyfriends sister yesterday and trying to figure if the kids were aware of this. Everyone is school is told they are wasting their time with certain things, the ones who actually rebel and don't bow to this conditioning don't exceed in their classes. The people running this thing want people who will follow their rules and not question things and reward them with bigger accademic ratings. These people who can't think on their own get the better jobs even though their intellect may be way lower. All academics want only conditioned people in their ranks, people who will not challenge the hierarchy in the fields they are in.

Too bad this isn't a conspiracy theory, it is just the way it is and has been even back when I was in school. Tests are structured to find if you do what your are told, most times not to test your intelligence. Well, being an employer for many years, it is good if your workers do what they are instructed to do so I suppose this conditioning is necessary in the society we live in.

a reply to: rickymouse

Evidence based rule making is a good example of this tactic. Framing a debate to exclude information or data that would not lead to the predetermined conclusion for instance. If for instance the FDA has been paid big bucks to fast track a patented drug that uses a synthetic analog of a natural traditional botanical remedy with a very long track record of efficacy in the treatment of an ailment as an example. In the United States the FDA will make a rule and remove the natural product from the market to enforce the monopoly of the pharmaceutical company which synthesized the drug by fractionating then altering slightly the active ingredient from the nature source.

When they are making the rule they will not publicize the debate period. If someone shows up to debate the rule information about the natural source for the drug is not allowed to be entered into the debate, only the clinical trial data from the company is allowed in the discussion. It makes reasoned debate on the subject impossible. This type of tactic has been used to reinforce the status quo for some time now.

The top gets a cut of everything we do.

If we could do more, the top would get more.

Are we encouraged to do more? no. We are continually more restricted by law.

Therefore the top doesn't want more than it already has, or it doesn't want us.

a reply to: machineintelligence

People tend to want to reinforce their beliefs. They structure societies around these beliefs. It is not only religion that has this tendency, it is society and even sciences and the medical field. Structuring things so money keeps flowing into your system is crucial to it's survival.

Persons only know what they have learned or discerned.

Discernment can be discouraged, and learning can be withheld or mislead.

Therefore Democracy is subject to the honesty of its society and the diligence of its voters.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I get what your saying but it seems like your stuck on a different topic and your kinda rambling.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I get what your saying but it seems like your stuck on a different topic and your kinda rambling.

Yeah, I was trying expand the scope further than lazy poor people.

Deductive logic gives a true answer only if the arguments are true.

And the answer is always contained in the beginning assumptions/arguments.

The arguments are always limited by the accuracy and precision of language, and also by the accuracy and precision of the concept in the mind.

I love this topic.. I had a math teacher that influenced us in this.. from a lot of the replys it seems like many don't understand it..

Deductive reasoning is like this.. it's raining outside so we can safely assume the parking lot is wet.. now the parking lot is wet does that mean it's raining? No...

Don't any of you watch Sherlock Holmes? I loved his books and the many tv series that have spun from his character..

My personal favorite is Sherlock(BBC) and elementary.

Does anybody have a nice useful truth or two for public consumption?


A person always does what he thinks will benefit him the most.