Archive | Inductive Reasoning RSS feed for this section

Bullying in place of argumentation

11 May

HB2  I live in North Carolina outside the town of Asheville.  I read the daily newspaper, especially the editorial page and letters to the editor.

The clear majority of published letter writers caustically and sarcastically attacks the predominately Republican state government that passed House Bill 2 (HB2), which then was signed, into law by Governor Pat McCrory.

What has ensued from that legislative event has been mostly manipulative bullying (or bullying manipulation) by entertainers and companies such as Bruce Springsteen and PayPal.

If one supports the bill, one is automatically branded a bigot. And the labeling is delivered via shouting.  Where is the reasoned argumentation?  There is none.  No space is allowed for civil and thoughtful discourse.

So what happens when one framing of an issue is repeated loudly and often enough?

Nazi Joseph Goebbels might not have been the first person to arrive via inductive reasoning at this practical reality, but chillingly, his conclusion was born out in the Nazi horrors.”If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.” http://www.HolocaustResearchProject.org. 

In the current NC uproar, I would substitute LBGTQ movement supporters for ‘the State’.

The other day I read the latest issue of Hillsdale College’s Imprimis’.  This publication reprints speeches of notable visitors to the conservative institution.  I knew absolutely nothing about the baseball legend Ty Cobb. Nonetheless, what I DID learn reading this pamphlet was how naïve I might be to trust what I hear reported by ‘everyone’.   Apparently it has been common knowledge for a couple of generations since Mr. Cobb’s death that he was a racist, violent and unkind ‘scumbag,’ if nothing else.

But….the facts don’t bear this out.  The historian who set about to write an even more salacious biography of the 20th century sports ‘hero’ found the truth to be more interesting than current (that is, current since Mr. Cobb’s death in 1961) documentation.

For a brief look at what the truth actually is regarding Ty Cobb, read for yourself:   Ty Cobb – how history reports lies

Learning about the injustice done to a 20th century iconic figure has reinforced in my mind the desperate need for clear-thinking and kind logical Janes and Joes.  Friends, there IS truth.  And as people made in God’s image, we are called to look for, understand and argue for the truth, but ALWAYS in a winsome and grace-filled manner. Browbeating another person is NOT logic.

May God help us to major in the ‘kind and logical’ rather than seeking always to be right and logical, at a cost to human dignity.  It is arrogant to assume we see the Truth 100 % accurately.

 

 

Logical Gal and Reasoning like a Doctor

10 Oct

One of our cats died this week:

What a painful decision it is to choose to euthanize an animal when her quality of life is rapidly going down hill.  For years this cat had suffered from a chronic malady.  We struggled with her as we tried different remedies suggested by the vet.  But in the end, there was nothing more we could do.  At the ripe old age of 17 1/2 her organs were too weak to respond to medicine.

As we were chatting awkwardly with the vet who was getting to administer that final drug, I realized that the trial and error solutions that he and previous professionals had suggested were examples of abductive reasoning.

In language-based logic, there are 3 ways of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive.

Deductive reasoning is when you go from 2 known truths to a new piece of information.

All cats are curious

Leia is a cat

Therefore, Leia is curious

If the first two premises are true in a correctly formed syllogism (called ‘valid’ ) , then it follows that the conclusion must be true.  The conclusion is, in effect, GUARANTEED to be true. 

Inductive reasoning is more probabilistic.  The conclusion is at best LIKELY to be true.

The hurricane is moving in a northeasterly direction at the rate of 15 miles per hour.

Therefore, if it continues at that same rate and heading, it will probably reach our city by tomorrow night. 

Now to the thought process used by doctors, scientists and detectives.

Abductive reasoning is when you gather evidence and draw the best and most ‘reasonable’ (i.e. based on reasons) conclusion!  Many people rely on this kind of decision-making.  So much of life is uncertain.  But we gather the facts as best we can and we propose a solution or a conclusion. It’s trial and error.  Many of the decisions we take MUST rely on abductive reasoning.  I know this is frustrating to Americans who crave and are almost addicted to having certainty.

It is important, therefore, that you trust the character and procedures of the one who is reasoning this way.  Our cat did die, but all the vets involved in her life worked diligently and with care to provide the best treatments.  We are grateful to them and to God who guided us in that final decision as her owners.