- Big Questions
- Consciousness & Healing
- Extended Human Capacities
- Worldview Transformation
- Community Groups
commented on March 28, 2015
The reasoning process or processes we use determines the way we think & act so has everything to do with the way this world/reality is going to be. The two following extracts from the link below describes basically how the two main reasoning processes used today, inductive & deductive, differ from each other.
It did surprise me a little that deductive reasoning is vulnerable to error which has been exemplified by recent occurrences on IONS recently. I’ve pointed out certain errors of deductive reasoning & this article confirms such errors of deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning begins with specific details and observations — of natural occurrences or behavior, say — and uses them to arrive at a principle to explain them. What we now call the scientific method is largely inductive.
Deductive reasoning moves from the general to the specific. It uses logic to confirm something we already know to be true. Deduction is vulnerable to error at every step because it accepts the truth of the elements it uses to establish new truths.
It is funny because deductive reasoning only confirms what we already know therefore it is obvious we need inductive reasoning first up to give deductive reasoning something to evaluate. Most people who can only deductively reason have only memorised what is already known, it is impossible for them to think for themselves & come up with their own scientific method obviously. We must be careful here, just because we have memorised certain knowledge doesn’t make us smart & in fact if we all just memorised knowledge eventually we wouldn’t come up with anything new to evaluate, we would stop evolving it would seem & just become people who just deductively reason.
The following link also infers that deductive reasoning is limited & flawed.
Extract: It's possible to come to a logical conclusion even if the generalization is not true. If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false.