Author Topic: Deductive Reasoning  (Read 2050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hondo69

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,105
  • The more I know the less I understand
Deductive Reasoning
« on: January 15, 2017, 05:16:45 AM »
[1] My favorite toothpaste is sold out at the grocery store and I need to decide my best course of action.  After weighing my options I decide to buy another brand in travel size and come back next week, my regular brand will probably be back in stock.

[2] Barack Obama was our first half-black president, but has been such a failure we can never have another half-black president again.

[3] George Bush is from Texas.  Because I hate George Bush I therefore hate all Texans.

-----

Example #1 illustrates Deductive Reasoning.  The other two are examples of Inductive Reasoning.  Sherlock Holmes was famous for his deductive reasoning and was a popular fictional detective because people could follow his logic right along with each story.  And the same is true with popular detective stories on TV today.  Yet with big picture ideas such as healthcare or the economy logic seems to go right out the window with much of our population.

Not that long ago the public would never have bought into ideas that have no reasonable basis in logic. 

 - We're going to eliminate our market based healthcare system and replace it with a government run system to make it more efficient.

 - All cops are racist because some cops are racist therefore it's no big deal to gun them down in cold blood.

 - Don't worry that Obama took the trillion dollars Congress gave him for shovel ready jobs and made it rain for his buddies that helped get him elected.  Keynesian economics tell us it's the same difference.

These examples of inductive reasoning at its worst would have never even been possible a few short years ago.  But today the public buys right it.  They buy right in because the public does not demand a logical, reasonable explanation.  Instead, they are simply told what to think.

Our politicians and our media have taken a few specific examples of a problem and generalized them in order to draw a larger global conclusion and then declare it as accepted truth.  Previously our society would have demanded these heretics and their radical ideas be run out of town on a rail and possibly even prosecuted for the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

-----

Up until our very recent point in history Americans received a classic education, one that clearly distinguished a Western way of thinking versus that of Eastern cultures.  Our views of society including love, war, government and religion was not a choice between utopian nirvana and absolute misery, but one of graduated steps of acceptability.  Life is not an all or none proposition but one of humility that reflects the many limitations of human beings.

As such the underlying themes of a classical education were that we know very little, are frail human beings susceptible to our vices and live in an unforgiving natural world.  The Greeks called this the Tragic View and the writings of Homer and Sophocles reflected this holistic way of thinking.  It also separated them from Eastern writers that focused instead on superstitions, fads, and exaggerations.

-----

Keep this in mind the next time you turn on your TV and see the chattering class stage a so-called debate.  What are they really telling us?  Do their words piece together a reasoned argument in a step by step fashion or are they merely telling us what to think?

When I walk outside to my car and discover I'm getting wet I can reasonably deduce it is raining.  I can deduce this all by myself without any outside help.  Yet if I turn on my TV the chattering class tells me another story altogether.  They insist the reason I am getting wet is because I'm a victim of global warming and I can only be saved by the heavy hand of the United Nations.  Uh sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test of simple logic.  There is a padded cell somewhere for these types of people and their radical views.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 09:30:23 AM by Hondo69 »

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2017, 11:02:33 AM »
[1] My favorite toothpaste is sold out at the grocery store and I need to decide my best course of action.  After weighing my options I decide to buy another brand in travel size and come back next week, my regular brand will probably be back in stock.

[2] Barack Obama was our first half-black president, but has been such a failure we can never have another half-black president again.

[3] George Bush is from Texas.  Because I hate George Bush I therefore hate all Texans.

-----

Example #1 illustrates Deductive Reasoning.  The other two are examples of Inductive Reasoning.  Sherlock Holmes was famous for his deductive reasoning and was a popular fictional detective because people could follow his logic right along with each story.  And the same is true with popular detective stories on TV today.  Yet with big picture ideas such as healthcare or the economy logic seems to go right out the window with much of our population.

Not that long ago the public would never have bought into ideas that have no reasonable basis in logic. 

 - We're going to eliminate our market based healthcare system and replace it with a government run system to make it more efficient.

 - All cops are racist because some cops are racist therefore it's no big deal to gun them down in cold blood.

 - Don't worry that Obama took the trillion dollars Congress gave him for shovel ready jobs and made it rain for his buddies that helped get him elected.  Keynesian economics tell us it's the same difference.

These examples of inductive reasoning at its worst would have never even been possible a few short years ago.  But today the public buys right it.  They buy right in because the public does not demand a logical, reasonable explanation.  Instead, they are simply told what to think.

Our politicians and our media have taken a few specific examples of a problem and generalized them in order to draw a larger global conclusion and then declare it as accepted truth.  Previously our society would have demanded these heretics and their radical ideas be run out of town on a rail and possibly even prosecuted for the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

-----

Up until our very recent point in history Americans received a classic education, one that clearly distinguished a Western way of thinking versus that of Eastern cultures.  Our views of society including love, war, government and religion was not a choice between utopian nirvana and absolute misery, but one of graduated steps of acceptability.  Life is not an all or none proposition but one of humility that reflects the many limitations of human beings.

As such the underlying themes of a classical education were that we know very little, are frail human beings susceptible to our vices and live in an unforgiving natural world.  The Greeks called this the Tragic View and the writings of Homer and Sophocles reflected this holistic way of thinking.  It also separated them from Eastern writers that focused instead on superstitions, fads, and exaggerations.

-----

Keep this in mind the next time you turn on your TV and see the chattering class stage a so-called debate.  What are they really telling us?  Do their words piece together a reasoned argument in a step by step fashion or are they merely telling us what to think?

When I walk outside to my car and discover I'm getting wet I can reasonably deduce it is raining.  I can deduce this all by myself without any outside help.  Yet if I turn on my TV the chattering class tells me another story altogether.  They insist the reason I am getting wet is because I'm a victim of global warming and I can only be saved by the heavy hand of the United Nations.  Uh sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test of simple logic.  There is a padded cell somewhere for these types of people and their radical views.

You have hit on a critical aspect of the difference between how thinking-centered and feeling-centered people look at the world, perceive reality and form strong opinions.

Leftists consistently confuse things like deductive/inductive/abductive reasoning, cause/effect, reality/fantasy, emotion/rationality, rational dialectic/sophistic dialectic/Hegelian dialectic/Marxist dialectic. 

How we perceive the world shapes our formation of conscious attitudes and opinions. If our perceptions do not match reality, then our attitudes/opinions will be inferior because they are based on illusion, not reality.

For example, a person who wants to build a suspension bridge from one side of a chasm to another may be of the opinion that it can be done, based on a personal perception that there are sufficient materials on hand to build a strong, stabile structure from one side to the other. However, if the reality is that the distance across is greater than the perception, the opinion is inferior and if people who depend on the bridge being built for their survival act on that opinion, even lethal. 

One cannot really be serious-minded without applying mostly deductive observation, analysis and reasoning to the real world, because rational information (the product of application of deductive reasoning) is the only sort which lends itself to making accurate, precise, detailed descriptions of anything. Once subjective opinions and emotions enter an analysis or observation, the opinion will by its fundamental nature tend to be less accurate and precise than one that is exclusively rational in it's foundation.

Since deduction is concerned with precision and induction with approximation, the latter is inferior to the former in establishing an accurate, detailed description of reality.

 Good examples of deductive reasoning may be found in the scientific method and in the sort of analysis which law enforcement detectives, judges engage (or are supposed to)!

People who are not serious-minded frequently exchange emotional impressions for thinking in discussions/analysis. They also exchange inductive/abductive reasoning for deductive reasoning. They apply subjective appraisal where only objective appraisal is appropriate.

When every perception is forced through the subjective filter of the cerebral cortex (the function of which is to attach symbols to reality in order for them to be conceptually manipulated) there is always a tendency to modify what is perceived by adding or subtracting something to or from it.

People who are not trained to consciously detach their subjective appraisals from their objective ones are poor witnesses and unreliable consultants. Testing of subjects who are untrained in observation/reporting techniques have been demonstrated to be unable to accurately describe even relatively simple things.  People who are not conscious of the human proclivity to alter their descriptions of reality through inadvertent subjective modification are often shocked when they have this demonstrated to them.

There are famous cases where a circle of people sit around and one is given a phrase to remember and pass along to the person sitting next to them, and so on. In virtually 100% of the cases where this experiment is run, the phrase spoken by the last person in the circle is NEVER identical to the phrase that started the circle. In most cases, the accuracy of the phrase is destroyed by the fifth transfer. That is how prone to subjective alteration the human perception normally is in untrained subjects.

The bottom line is that we ultimately do not perceive reality with our senses, so much as with our minds. A mind that is not trained to consciously recognized and concentrate effort on maintaining objective focus on perception in order to preserve integrity will universally degrade the validity of any datum which enters their awareness and is either rescripted to another or integrated into a personal analysis.

One of Dr. Michael Crichton's biggest concerns was how supposedly objective science had been and continued to be adulterated, altered, contaminated and distorted either willfully or inadvertently by the application of political considerations or other forms of subjectifying. He lamented the horribly destructive effect of violating rules of deductive, scientific method in the interests of political advocacy, as demonstrated most egregiously by the AGW fanatic movement. 
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 11:53:48 AM by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,857
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2017, 11:09:30 AM »
You have hit on a critical aspect of the difference between how thinking-centered and feeling-centered people look at the world, perceive reality and form strong opinions.

Leftists consistently confuse things like deductive/inductive/abductive reasoning, cause/effect, reality/fantasy, emotion/rationality, rational dialectic/sophistic dialectic/Hegelian dialectic/Marxist dialectic. 

How we perceive the world shapes our formation of conscious attitudes and opinions. If our perceptions do not match reality, then our attitudes/opinions will be inferior because they are based on illusion, not reality.

For example, a person who wants to build a suspension bridge from one side of a chasm to another may be of the opinion that it can be done, based on a personal perception that there are sufficient materials on hand to build a strong, stabile structure from one side to the other. However, if the reality is that the distance across is greater than the perception, the opinion is inferior and if people who depend on the bridge being built for their survival act on that opinion, even lethal.

 :thumbsup2: :thumbsup2: :thumbsup2: :thumbsup2:

Offline JustPassinThru

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2017, 07:45:18 PM »
[1] My favorite toothpaste is sold out at the grocery store and I need to decide my best course of action.  After weighing my options I decide to buy another brand in travel size and come back next week, my regular brand will probably be back in stock.

[2] Barack Obama was our first half-black president, but has been such a failure we can never have another half-black president again.

[3] George Bush is from Texas.  Because I hate George Bush I therefore hate all Texans.

-----

Example #1 illustrates Deductive Reasoning.  The other two are examples of Inductive Reasoning.  Sherlock Holmes was famous for his deductive reasoning and was a popular fictional detective because people could follow his logic right along with each story.  And the same is true with popular detective stories on TV today.  Yet with big picture ideas such as healthcare or the economy logic seems to go right out the window with much of our population.

Not that long ago the public would never have bought into ideas that have no reasonable basis in logic. 

 - We're going to eliminate our market based healthcare system and replace it with a government run system to make it more efficient.

 - All cops are racist because some cops are racist therefore it's no big deal to gun them down in cold blood.

 - Don't worry that Obama took the trillion dollars Congress gave him for shovel ready jobs and made it rain for his buddies that helped get him elected.  Keynesian economics tell us it's the same difference.

These examples of inductive reasoning at its worst would have never even been possible a few short years ago.  But today the public buys right it.  They buy right in because the public does not demand a logical, reasonable explanation.  Instead, they are simply told what to think.

Our politicians and our media have taken a few specific examples of a problem and generalized them in order to draw a larger global conclusion and then declare it as accepted truth.  Previously our society would have demanded these heretics and their radical ideas be run out of town on a rail and possibly even prosecuted for the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

-----

Up until our very recent point in history Americans received a classic education, one that clearly distinguished a Western way of thinking versus that of Eastern cultures.  Our views of society including love, war, government and religion was not a choice between utopian nirvana and absolute misery, but one of graduated steps of acceptability.  Life is not an all or none proposition but one of humility that reflects the many limitations of human beings.

As such the underlying themes of a classical education were that we know very little, are frail human beings susceptible to our vices and live in an unforgiving natural world.  The Greeks called this the Tragic View and the writings of Homer and Sophocles reflected this holistic way of thinking.  It also separated them from Eastern writers that focused instead on superstitions, fads, and exaggerations.

-----

Keep this in mind the next time you turn on your TV and see the chattering class stage a so-called debate.  What are they really telling us?  Do their words piece together a reasoned argument in a step by step fashion or are they merely telling us what to think?

When I walk outside to my car and discover I'm getting wet I can reasonably deduce it is raining.  I can deduce this all by myself without any outside help.  Yet if I turn on my TV the chattering class tells me another story altogether.  They insist the reason I am getting wet is because I'm a victim of global warming and I can only be saved by the heavy hand of the United Nations.  Uh sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test of simple logic.  There is a padded cell somewhere for these types of people and their radical views.

This is an interesting exploration.  And while it does show the flaws of drawing CONCLUSIONS based on a small, limited example, there is nothing wrong or fallacious in raising QUESTIONS.

We have seen one Texan (let's pretend only one) in the White House.  He was (let's pretend) an insufferable [expletive].  Now of course that doesn't prove that all Texans have that flaw; but it might suggest that whatever flaw it is, might be more prevalent there.

It might make someone cautious when the next candidate wanders out with a big hat, an open collar and an adenoidal twang. (No, I don't hate Texans; I'm just building on that example)

Or, black or mixed-race political leaders.  We cannot judge them all by one Kenyan bastard fraud.  But we CAN wonder if somehow Affirmative Action and guilt-signaling of whites, let an incompetent "black" through.

Congress-cretins like John Lewis, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Alcee Hastings...really do add to that suspicion.  They seem to be ten-to-one to true leaders like Allen West.

So...are we wrong to explore our suspicions this way?

Offline Hondo69

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,105
  • The more I know the less I understand
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2017, 04:10:01 AM »
You have hit on a critical aspect of the difference between how thinking-centered and feeling-centered people look at the world, perceive reality and form strong opinions.

The bottom line is that we ultimately do not perceive reality with our senses, so much as with our minds. A mind that is not trained to consciously recognized and concentrate effort on maintaining objective focus on perception in order to preserve integrity will universally degrade the validity of any datum which enters their awareness and is either rescripted to another or integrated into a personal analysis.

One of Dr. Michael Crichton's biggest concerns was how supposedly objective science had been and continued to be adulterated, altered, contaminated and distorted either willfully or inadvertently by the application of political considerations or other forms of subjectifying. He lamented the horribly destructive effect of violating rules of deductive, scientific method in the interests of political advocacy, as demonstrated most egregiously by the AGW fanatic movement.

Very interesting reading - thanks for posting such detailed information.


I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I get by OK.  I'm able to keep life between the ditches most days.

But that seems to be an increasing rarity these days as I've noticed more and more people seem downright lost.  Whether searching for a parking spot, shopping in the grocery store or running their mouths about politics so many people appear fuzzy on the concept.  I know because I pay close attention and my natural curiosity tends to take in all the little details as I observe the world around me.  To me most little things in life are not rocket science but for so many other people they seem downright lost.

And further, I tend to confuse others quite a bit these days.  It happens so often in fact I sometimes think, "it's me".  For example, things that will shut down people cold and cause a total brain freeze would include:

 - Me saying I was in favor of going after Saddam Hussein but totally against the nation building that followed.  Others view the two going hand in hand and it's unthinkable to them that these might be two separate ideas.  A person cannot be for one without being for the other too.

 - Moving a shopping cart to side of the aisle so I can pass and saying, "I'd like to get by" can be taken as a personal violation.  The other shopper is outraged that I would assault their personal shopping cart like a wild heathen.

 - When giving directions to a stranger I might ask, "do you want to go the easiest way or the fastest way?"  My thinking would be to let them choose, but the blank stare that comes back tells me offering an option was a big mistake.

While the examples might seem unrelated I feel there is a common connection.  People are really lost these days and seem to lack the ability to perform any sort of critical thinking at all.  While most of life's little ups and downs don't seem like rocket science to me it obviously appears to others as complex as string theory.  And they just shut down.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,829
  • Does Sartre validate his own parking?
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2017, 05:36:20 AM »
@Hondo69

Sorry I missed this when it was posted. Nice job!

It'll be going into the "Above the Fold" section soon as the person with the keys wakes up.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,857
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2017, 09:26:44 AM »
@Hondo69

Sorry I missed this when it was posted. Nice job!

It'll be going into the "Above the Fold" section soon as the person with the keys wakes up.

Good cause that is EXACTLY where it belongs!

Offline Atenez

  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 10
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2017, 02:14:20 PM »
It gets worse.

There have been a number of efforts over the past half century to advance the concept that "Uncertainty" is the norm. That "Certainty" is to be rejected since it is objective, definitive and therefore judgemental toward those that are unwilling to accept its conclusions.

Seemingly intelligent people are more and more being convinced that there isn't any one foundation of knowledge or belief. No basis for anything, from morality to science, as all opinions must carry equal weight in order to not offend. That's all opinions, except those that are "Certain".

You have no right to "Judge" me, you don't "Know" me, don't "Define" me and I'll let you be.

The leftists want us to believe that free will is an illusion. They want you to trust them and their "science" as your guide. And their "Science" explains what they "know" to be true by invoking theories that, while possible, are fundamentally UN-provable.

   

 


Offline JustPassinThru

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2017, 02:17:36 PM »
B. F. Skinner.

Free will is a myth.

Except, of course, for the Masterminds - those of higher intellect, who hold the Secrets...who are LIBERAL.  They are the Masters.  Us Deplorables...we're the chattel; we're the objects; we're the grist for the mill.

The tools with which they'll make pleasing patterns.

Offline Atenez

  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 10
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2017, 02:32:36 PM »

Scientists renounce God...why?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJ5dHtmNtU

Offline Sighlass

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 208
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2017, 03:34:18 PM »
It gets worse.

There have been a number of efforts over the past half century to advance the concept that "Uncertainty" is the norm. That "Certainty" is to be rejected since it is objective, definitive and therefore judgemental toward those that are unwilling to accept its conclusions.

Seemingly intelligent people are more and more being convinced that there isn't any one foundation of knowledge or belief. No basis for anything, from morality to science, as all opinions must carry equal weight in order to not offend. That's all opinions, except those that are "Certain".

You have no right to "Judge" me, you don't "Know" me, don't "Define" me and I'll let you be.

The leftists want us to believe that free will is an illusion. They want you to trust them and their "science" as your guide. And their "Science" explains what they "know" to be true by invoking theories that, while possible, are fundamentally UN-provable.

@Atenez

Good to have you here Atenez, hope you stick around. You addition to the thread was appreciated.
Jesus is the most important thing in this world and the next. Get to know him and we can be friends forever. If he will take this ole sinner, he will take you.

Offline Atenez

  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 10
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2017, 03:46:46 PM »
@Atenez

Good to have you here Atenez, hope you stick around. You addition to the thread was appreciated.
<p>

It may be too early to tell.

In the meantime, thanks.

And now for your viewing and listening pleasure;

Lucia Micarelli - Bohemian Rhapsody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKL0TAliz50


Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,829
  • Does Sartre validate his own parking?
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2017, 03:51:37 PM »
It gets worse.

There have been a number of efforts over the past half century to advance the concept that "Uncertainty" is the norm. That "Certainty" is to be rejected since it is objective, definitive and therefore judgemental toward those that are unwilling to accept its conclusions.

Seemingly intelligent people are more and more being convinced that there isn't any one foundation of knowledge or belief. No basis for anything, from morality to science, as all opinions must carry equal weight in order to not offend. That's all opinions, except those that are "Certain".

You have no right to "Judge" me, you don't "Know" me, don't "Define" me and I'll let you be.

The leftists want us to believe that free will is an illusion. They want you to trust them and their "science" as your guide. And their "Science" explains what they "know" to be true by invoking theories that, while possible, are fundamentally UN-provable.

 

First - Welcome!

I'm going to both agree with everything you wrote - and take exception as well.

Reasoning isn't a one size fits all thing. While Deductive Reasoning is (and should be) king, it is fairly useless when it comes to the social non-sciences.

Societies are constructs and are inherently illogical. Things are, in a social group, simply because they are and that's the way it's always been. Even so, given a knowledge of the social group, deductive reasoning should be usable - the parameters are there, after all. The answer to that is a resounding no - simply because people do not inhabit only one social grouping at a time.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Atenez

  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 10
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2017, 04:17:57 PM »
Please understand.

It is reasoning itself that has been under attack. Under attack for drawing logical conclusions that don't comport to a never ending list of desires.

We are living in a world in which those "Desires" are held above and advanced ahead of virtually all logical conclusions. And the atheist left holds rallies to promote their definition of Reason.

Watch this.

This kid is not stupid, just misguided by an educational system that exploits his emotions over the traditional scientific method. These folks are being taught to embrace uncertainty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxz84kS8k4U

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,829
  • Does Sartre validate his own parking?
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2017, 04:27:43 PM »
Please understand.

It is reasoning itself that has been under attack. Under attack for drawing logical conclusions that don't comport to a never ending list of desires.

We are living in a world in which those "Desires" are held above and advanced ahead of virtually all logical conclusions. And the atheist left holds rallies to promote their definition of Reason.

On this we completely agree. Some of the mental contortions they go through to "logically" justify their wants would be funny if they weren't so sad.

My point was, I think, a corollary of yours more than a disagreement - there are places where inductive reasoning works and deductive reasoning doesn't, and those places tend to be humanocentric. So it's as well to keep both tools equally sharp and not to prefer one to the exclusion of the other.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Atenez

  • Members
  • ***
  • Posts: 10
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2017, 04:39:31 PM »
Faith?

Is there any room for faith in our so-called modern world?

Not just faith in God, but faith in Human nature.

At the end of the day, it has been the left that is trying to undermine the faith of oneself.

Did you watch the video ?




Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,829
  • Does Sartre validate his own parking?
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2017, 04:46:27 PM »
Not watched the video yet - that has to wait until I'm off duty. So I'm going to hold further comment until then.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Online bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,903
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2017, 06:46:53 PM »
Faith?

Is there any room for faith in our so-called modern world?

Not just faith in God, but faith in Human nature.

At the end of the day, it has been the left that is trying to undermine the faith of oneself.

Did you watch the video ?



Science follows God.

Welcome for to be here.

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2017, 11:08:55 PM »
On this we completely agree. Some of the mental contortions they go through to "logically" justify their wants would be funny if they weren't so sad.

My point was, I think, a corollary of yours more than a disagreement - there are places where inductive reasoning works and deductive reasoning doesn't, and those places tend to be humanocentric. So it's as well to keep both tools equally sharp and not to prefer one to the exclusion of the other.

Clearly since leftists damage/destroy everything they touch, the principle of inductive reasoning is no different.
Since inductive reasoning uses assumptions to arrive at a logical, rational synthesis, unless Ockham's Razor  is applied in the process of selecting those assumptions, the entire process becomes not inductive, but rather abductive reasoning (or worse).

Ockham's Razor is of course the principle (shunned/hated by the far left) which states that the conclusion to any question which requires the least number of assumptions generally is the correct one.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 12:17:47 AM by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2017, 11:45:27 PM »
It gets worse.

There have been a number of efforts over the past half century to advance the concept that "Uncertainty" is the norm. That "Certainty" is to be rejected since it is objective, definitive and therefore judgemental toward those that are unwilling to accept its conclusions.

Seemingly intelligent people are more and more being convinced that there isn't any one foundation of knowledge or belief. No basis for anything, from morality to science, as all opinions must carry equal weight in order to not offend. That's all opinions, except those that are "Certain".

You have no right to "Judge" me, you don't "Know" me, don't "Define" me and I'll let you be.

The leftists want us to believe that free will is an illusion. They want you to trust them and their "science" as your guide. And their "Science" explains what they "know" to be true by invoking theories that, while possible, are fundamentally UN-provable.

Nice post! You are thrice welcome with stuff like this. Magnificent.

BTW, what you write of so eloquently and plainly traces what the Vedantists call one of the "demonic qualities" - to wit, the belief that there is no reality (aka no "ground of being") which does not change. The belief that nothing is objectively real, unchanging and absolute in human consciousness is considered Satanic to Vendantists and I think to most normal people, especially Christians.

It tacks sharply against natural instincts in the perception of the real world. Only someone who is lost in their own inner cerebral convolutions ( detached from reality) could possibly be attracted to such patent nonsense.

CS Lewis writes perceptively about this proclivity (perverse fetishism about insanity and a twisted preoccupation with creating a "borderless, amoral universe" without firm demarcations for anything) in his Space Trilogy (especially in "That Hideous Strength").

This is also another case where leftist philosophy/ideology traces pathological principles - in this case loss of what psychotherapists who treat schizophrenia/drug-induced psychosis call "loss of reality loyalty". That in plain terms is exactly what you elucidate above. The notion that there is nothing definite or unchanging in human consciousness and that if it is firm and unyielding either perceptively or in a moral sense it is somehow bad.

That is why I maintain that largely and increasingly leftist ideology/philosophy is not just atheistic or agnostic toward prevailing, traditional spirituality, it far more-closely resembles Satanism.

That is the emphatic rejection/condemnation of what are popularly considered by normal people to be goodness and sanity. Leftism is very, very dangerous and destructive. The closer and more intently one examines it and its effects on the real world, the more alarming and evil it appears.

Intensity is not evil, but many on the left would insist that refusal or failure to be "nice" all of the time is in itself, a moral failing - even if one is not "nice" to real, blatant, resolute, grim-faced, purposeful evil. 
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 12:19:17 AM by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2017, 12:31:26 AM »
Please understand.

It is reasoning itself that has been under attack. Under attack for drawing logical conclusions that don't comport to a never ending list of desires.

We are living in a world in which those "Desires" are held above and advanced ahead of virtually all logical conclusions. And the atheist left holds rallies to promote their definition of Reason.

Watch this.

This kid is not stupid, just misguided by an educational system that exploits his emotions over the traditional scientific method. These folks are being taught to embrace uncertainty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxz84kS8k4U

The preference, yea, insistence upon vagueness is characteristic of histrionic personality disorder.

For example, if a person with this disorder is asked to name some person whom they admire, if asked what they like about them will answer very vaguely. If asked to clarify and be more specific, they will often react very defensively and snap back with some vagary like, "She is just a beautiful person!" As if that is enough for anyone to be informed of why she likes them.

Showing resentment when asked for specifics is an example of the direct conflict which can make a person who is predominately emotion/intuition-centered in their thinking (as many afflicted with emotional illness often are)  feel panicky and attacked.

When people with severe neurosis (aversion to precision for instance) experience a question which nudges the edges of their world view (emotions/feelings/intuitions are more important than facts or other rational information) they often react with exaggerated, inappropriate hostility. The principle simply asks what they believe to be an innocent question, expecting some sort of mild response, but get an emotional kick in the teeth instead.

A psychotherapist recognizes a defensive response in this sort of exchange and will note it for future reference both because of the implications for interpersonal conflict for the subject and for internal factors having to do with a possibly traumatic history with people who are either thinking-centered or hyper-rational.

The point is that avoiding precision or reacting to requests for more precise information with harsh invective/rage is definitely not normal and if it grows out of control, can develop into a fairly destructive personality defect  / characterological disorder.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 12:34:02 AM by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)

Offline Hondo69

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,105
  • The more I know the less I understand
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2017, 05:33:07 AM »
That is why I maintain that largely and increasingly leftist ideology/philosophy is not just atheistic or agnostic toward prevailing, traditional spirituality, it far more-closely resembles Satanism.

That is the emphatic rejection/condemnation of what are popularly considered by normal people to be goodness and sanity. Leftism is very, very dangerous and destructive. The closer and more intently one examines it and its effects on the real world, the more alarming and evil it appears.

As a young man I was fascinated with the rise of Nazi Germany in the sense it begged a simple question.  How could a nation of relatively reasonable people ever allow such an evil movement to gain a foothold and eventually rise to such great power?

There is no easy answer, of course, but after consuming a few hundred history books the pieces of the puzzle slowly began to fit together.  Toss in the fact that I was personally witnessing many of the very same puzzle pieces falling into place before my very eyes and more than a few red flags began going up right here at home.

Cult like behavior cannot gain a foothold all by itself.  Sure you will always have small pockets of people willing to follow Jim Jones into the jungles of Guyana, but on a widespread national basis it requires much more than a single enigmatic figure.  It also requires the fabric of a society to be torn to shreds.  In the case of Nazi Germany, the aftermath of WWI had left their society completely torn to shreds.  There was no stable underlying structure to fortify their society left remaining in the 1930's.

------

The Architects of Ruin here in the Unites States have been working overtime to accomplish the same set of circumstances.  Tearing down the banking system, the healthcare system and the justice system have been key pillars of a structured society to eliminate, but those are just a few puzzle pieces.  None of those destructive efforts are meaningful (or even possible) without first destroying Christian moral values and at the same time revamping the education system.

Our parents, who were raised largely in rural environments, instinctively knew the difference between a cow pattie and a line of bull.  You'd likely receive a punch in the nose if you wandered around spouting ideas like free healthcare and all white people are obviously naturally racist.  Deductive reasoning was second nature to that generation.  If we don't tend the crops we don't eat, a hail storm can wipe out a year's worth of hard work in 10 minutes, our livestock will die if we don't follow the proper steps.  Today's generation doesn't even know where their food comes from.

By attacking Christian moral values and installing an education system that tells students what to think instead of teaching them how to think on their own, several fundamental pillars of our structured society are thereby eliminated.  And once eliminated, cult style behavior may then be cultivated.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,857
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2017, 05:53:22 AM »
@Atenez @EC @LateForLunch @Hondo69

Just want you to know how very much I am enjoying reading this thread and how important I think the subject matter is.

Please continue!
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 10:03:59 AM by Bigun »

Offline JustPassinThru

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2017, 09:44:49 AM »
As a young man I was fascinated with the rise of Nazi Germany in the sense it begged a simple question.  How could a nation of relatively reasonable people ever allow such an evil movement to gain a foothold and eventually rise to such great power?

There is no easy answer, of course, but after consuming a few hundred history books the pieces of the puzzle slowly began to fit together.  Toss in the fact that I was personally witnessing many of the very same puzzle pieces falling into place before my very eyes and more than a few red flags began going up right here at home.

Cult like behavior cannot gain a foothold all by itself.  Sure you will always have small pockets of people willing to follow Jim Jones into the jungles of Guyana, but on a widespread national basis it requires much more than a single enigmatic figure.  It also requires the fabric of a society to be torn to shreds.  In the case of Nazi Germany, the aftermath of WWI had left their society completely torn to shreds.  There was no stable underlying structure to fortify their society left remaining in the 1930's.

------

The Architects of Ruin here in the Unites States have been working overtime to accomplish the same set of circumstances.  Tearing down the banking system, the healthcare system and the justice system have been key pillars of a structured society to eliminate, but those are just a few puzzle pieces.  None of those destructive efforts are meaningful (or even possible) without first destroying Christian moral values and at the same time revamping the education system.

Our parents, who were raised largely in rural environments, instinctively knew the difference between a cow pattie and a line of bull.  You'd likely receive a punch in the nose if you wandered around spouting ideas like free healthcare and all white people are obviously naturally racist.  Deductive reasoning was second nature to that generation.  If we don't tend the crops we don't eat, a hail storm can wipe out a year's worth of hard work in 10 minutes, our livestock will die if we don't follow the proper steps.  Today's generation doesn't even know where their food comes from.

By attacking Christian moral values and installing an education system that tells students what to think instead of teaching them how to think on their own, several fundamental pillars of our structured society are thereby eliminated.  And once eliminated, cult style behavior may then be cultivated.

Tremendously insightful.  Nothing happens in a vacuum; the reason we avoided cults like the Nazi movement was that we didn't have the political instability that has roiled Europe since Rome fell.

And now we do.  For all the weeping and gnashing of teeth the Lefties are doing, it was, more than anything, Barry Dunham-Soetoro who paved the way for a Donald Trump and his cultlike core followers.

If you want to see the glass half full, it's not hard.  It could have gone much, much worse.  Imagine Lyndon LaRouche as President. 

Unfortunately, I think Trump is going to be a transitional step, and not in the right direction.  The cult is there, frantically seeking a comic-book superhero.  Someone ready to take it to those n_ggers and deviants and those beaners and chinks and gooks who rip us off with all this **FREE TRADE** - someone who's gonna stand up for **WHITE AMERICA**.  I can just hear the jackboots clicking on the pavement - what's going to be our version of the Horst Wessel Song?

The Left, for all its craftiness, never did and never can understand the blessings that the stable American system gave them and all of us.  And what we are seeing is it being taken away.

Offline LateForLunch

  • GOTWALMA Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone! (Nods to Teebone)
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
Re: Deductive Reasoning
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2017, 09:26:03 PM »
Tremendously insightful.  Nothing happens in a vacuum; the reason we avoided cults like the Nazi movement was that we didn't have the political instability that has roiled Europe since Rome fell.

And now we do.  For all the weeping and gnashing of teeth the Lefties are doing, it was, more than anything, Barry Dunham-Soetoro who paved the way for a Donald Trump and his cultlike core followers.

If you want to see the glass half full, it's not hard.  It could have gone much, much worse.  Imagine Lyndon LaRouche as President. 

Unfortunately, I think Trump is going to be a transitional step, and not in the right direction.  The cult is there, frantically seeking a comic-book superhero.  Someone ready to take it to those n_ggers and deviants and those beaners and chinks and gooks who rip us off with all this **FREE TRADE** - someone who's gonna stand up for **WHITE AMERICA**.  I can just hear the jackboots clicking on the pavement - what's going to be our version of the Horst Wessel Song?

The Left, for all its craftiness, never did and never can understand the blessings that the stable American system gave them and all of us.  And what we are seeing is it being taken away.

With all due respect, (and that is great, sieur!) Trump derives from and belongs largely to the meritocracy, not the bureaucracy/big-government oligarchy. Business people must constantly test their suppositions about the Will of the People they serve with reality. That is light years removed from hyper-intellectual professors who see themselves as Nietzache's ubermenches whose duty and privilege is to stand outside the effects and influences of their epic decisions and rule the world at arm's length.

Trump could have retired with his billions and enjoyed life, but he chose to become the chief executive of the USA. If the vice-presidency is a "warm bucket of spit" then the presidency must be a molten steel enema. For anyone who takes on that job willingly (and it's actually two jobs, first the political job of campaigning successfully then governing successfully) my hat is off.

I'm willing to give the veck a chance. Much as I would prefer that he get hit by a meteor and let Pence do his magic.  :laugh:
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 09:27:08 PM by LateForLunch »
GOTWALMA Get out of the way and leave me alone! (Nods to General Teebone)


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf