Saturday, December 20

Two modes of thought.

Philosophy typically works using deductive reasoning.
Science typically works using inductive reasoning.
Religion typically doesn't work at all, using any reasoning.


Some definitions...

Deduction:

One makes up one's mind on something, then uses logic and whatever appropriate logical loopholes can be imagined and convincingly argued, to show that this opinion is the way "it really is." In the end charisma and/or intimidation often come into play.


Induction:

Same as deduction, except one additionally gathers facts that support one's hunch, ignores those that don't, then arranges and presents the "good" facts so as to make it seem that Nature herself agrees on the point. This is more convincing than deduction, so science generally beats philosophy the way paper somehow beats rock.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

Hmm. As a historian I could only ever argue a point of view if I could prove it with examples, the more the better. Anything that discounted my arguments couldn't be ignored and had to be incorporated into my explaining of that history. How does that fit in?

Metamatician said...

Eh...I was just trying to be sarcastic about both reasoning methods. I guess I didn't do a very good job.

Reasoning from examples would be inductive reasoning, and of course you should use ALL available facts and not cherry pick only those that support your theory.

You shouldn't even really have a theory, you'd start from hypotheses that occurred to you as you looked over data (in the case of history, say you read an old eyewitness account of some event, and it seems different from what modern historians have concurred happened - not that they ever concur. But maybe some new idea suggests itself to you - Jack the Ripper was a woman!! ...or something).

Then you test your hypothesis to see if it fits all the facts, and the more it does, the stronger your case becomes. Anyways, you know how it all works, although history is a more subjective thing than something like physics.

And there's still a place for deductive reasoning too, such as the ancient Greeks liked to use - reasoning from first principles. That's the way mathematics works and opposed to science.

Well we could talk about logical argumentation forever, but I don't feel like it right now. Heh.

Maybe I'll do a serious piece on it sometime. Here I was just trying to be witty or sardonic or one of those other words.

Metamatician said...

*'as opposed to science', I meant to say.

Unknown said...

It's late here, I half missed the sarcasm. I was going to and some hopefully witty comment about religion have no need for any thought whatsover but my sleepiness messed that up too.

Metamatician said...

You need to get to bed!

Archived Posts

Search The Meta-Plane