"In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion;
in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true."
Garth Kemerling 2002.
Deductive reasoning is the process of:
1. taking a law or premise as is, as a priori (not depended upon prior experience or experimentation "not by human interpretation"),
2. accepting it as certain (unquestionable) and applicable in all cases (universal,) known as a categorical imperative, and
3. applying it to a specific case using valid syllogisms.
Examples of valid syllogism or sound logic are: if A=B and C=B then A=C; if A=B and C≠B then C≠A.
The law or premise, accepted as established truth, is used to evaluate the truth or rightness of any idea or situation. Those things which are in agreement to the premise are accepted as true but those things which are not in agreement are rejected as not true. An "I know" can be voiced in confidence, "I know that I am right and I know that you are wrong because my conclusion lines up with the premise, and yours does not." The premise "two plus two equals four and can not equal any other number" is universal and unquestionable. It is a categorical imperative. Whether someone is working on a toy, a bridge, or a plane, it works. If someone builds a bridge with two plus two equaling five, you don't cross the bridge. If you do you do it at your own peril.
Either it agrees or it disagrees.
Contrasting, identifying that which does not agree, is as important in deductive reasoning as is comparing, identifying that which does agree (either/or). Either it agrees or it disagrees. "This idea is in agreement with the premise, and this other idea is not." In deductive reasoning, the moment a statement (hypothesis) conflicts with the premise, a cognitive contrast or gap is recognized, and it is rejected. Contrast is important to determining the rightness of any statement. Just because something seems to be right (supposition,) does not mean that it is right. Just because something seems to be in agreement with the premise, or is similar to the premise, does not mean it is in agreement with the premise. "Seems to" is the language of private interpretation, the result of perception, it is the language of theory. In the language of perceptions―"I think"―we quickly focus on those things which are similar to our desired outcomes, in other words our feelings are involved in determining the outcome, and we tend to loose the ability to cognitively or factually recognize those things which are in conflict with the a priori.
Cognitive Dissonance―When our perception conflicts with the a priori.
"... and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." Numbers 13:33
"... the eye becomes the human eye, the ear the human ear." Karl Marx
Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. Deuteronomy 29:4
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. Matthew 13:13-16
The moment the issue at hand (the crisis) shifts us from evaluating from the a priori to focusing on the issue at hand from our own perception or experience, i.e. suspending (shelving) or excluding the a priori, we move out of deductive, didactic thinking into a painful condition known as cognitive dissonance. In this condition of cognitive dissonance, uncertainty (a feeling) takes over. At the center of this uncertainty is our "what about me" self focused concerns. It is in the tension of cognitive dissonance that we tend to determine what is right and wrong according to our feelings, regarding the situation, from an affective contrast―what makes us and/or others feel good and what does not. Our contrast has therefore moved from distancing ourselves from those with an incorrect a priori, or standard, to now distancing ourselves from those who think with an a priori, who think deductively, who think right and wrong. We have done a paradigm shift. We don't just disagree with their premise we disagree with them for insisting on and defending a premise. We end up aligning ourselves with those who think inductively or dialectically―who are reasonable. What is right and what is wrong is no longer based upon principles which are certain and lasting, but is now determined by which thought process a person is using to determine what is right and what is wrong in the moment, i.e. situation ethics, values clarification, etc.
"We must develop persons who see non-influenceability of private convictions in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue."
Kenneth Benne Human Relations in Curriculum Change 1951
According to social engineers (transformational Marxists) no one who is only persuadable―concerned about the facts, holds to established standards or personal convictions, principled, thinks deductively, from a premise or a priori―should be placed in any influential position. Only those who are influenceable―those who social engineers are able to manipulate (feelings), changeable under pressure, concerned about how others feel about their position, concerned about the respect of men, concerned about social rejection or alienation, who think inductively―should be placed in positions of influence. God pleasers are willing to endure rejection because of their strong convictions of what is right, and if they misbehave they are persuaded or convicted by a guilty conscience, to do what is right, while people pleasers are influenced or moved to change their mind out of the fear of human rejection, out of fear of being shamed (respect of men―superego).
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Hebrews 12:2
The utilization of perception to negate an a priori-based paradigm.
When force is used by a parent to inculcate a standard (an a priori) into a child, not only is the standard learned or internalized, a sense of dread, a fear of judgment is also acquired (conscience). If an environment can be arranged where the parent is powerless to carry out judgment (either is not present or is willingly participating in the environment), in the perception of the child, the fear of judgment likewise ceases to exist. The child will then feel greater freedom in participating in the activity which was formerly forbidden (superego).
"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult. If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." Kurt Lewin A Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers, McGraw Hill
Rearranging the field to destabilize and "shift" a person's paradigm.
An environment where relationship and tolerance is accentuated (at the expense of pre-set standards) will have a deteriorating affect on anyone raised to respect and obey authority. Facilitators work hard at creating such an environment. When you find yourself in a meeting where the emphasis is on being "positive" and not being "negative," or being "open minded" and not being "close minded," you are in such an environment. When these terms are identified with feelings they can be contrasted as "play behavior" and "barrier behavior." Play associated with positive feelings―doing what you want to do, and barrier with negative feelings―having to do what you don't want to do and/or not doing what you want to do. In other words, with deductive reasoning, the a priori can act as a barrier to play, producing negative feelings, while with inductive reasoning, the theory can act as a time to play without barriers, producing positive feelings.
In "force field analysis" the role of the change agent is to identify the negative and positive forces in the field (environment) and "map the room." He must identify who is using a traditional-didactic-deductive-patriarchal paradigm―a resister to change, who is using a transitional or just get along, avoid conflict paradigm, and who is using a transformational-dialectic-inductive-heresiarchal paradigm. By integrating the forces in the field to promote play behavior, he can accomplish a breaking down of barrier behavior. While it is a simply/complex process for the facilitator to instigate―it depends upon who is in the field, it is a very painful experience for those who think deductively, who have strong barrier behavior and get caught up in the environment and must be willing to lose things which are dear to them; friendships, promotions, career, etc.
"Change in organization can be derived from the overlapping between play and barrier behavior. To be governed by two strong goals is equivalent to the existence of two conflicting controlling heads within the organism. This should lead to a decrease in degree of hierarchical organization. Also, a certain disorganization should result from the fact that the cognitive-motor system loses to some degree its character of a good medium because of these conflicting heads. It ceases to be in a state of near equilibrium; the forces under the control of one head have to counteract the forces of the other before they are effective." Child Behavior and Development Chapter XXVI Frustration and Regression Kurt Lewin, McGraw Hill
Contrast―respect for an authority paradigm―and the ability to think deductively.
In the Word of God, contrast is always used in reference to the relation between God and man, contrasting who is in authority, and who is not in authority. "Is" and "not" are the key words used in the "system" of contrast. This makes it a "closed system." I AM God and you are not. (You are man and not God.) I AM the creator and you are not. (You are the created and you are not the creator. You can only design.) I AM holy and you are not. Apart from me you can not be holy ("All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." "Only God is good.") In fact with God's evaluation statement "I AM that I AM," he is pure contrast and nothing in the creation can be compared to Him.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9
Focusing only on what is similar, what we have in common, overcomes differences, overcomes discrimination―Eros.
Consider this, if we focus only upon what is similar, differences will no longer stand in the way of relationships―humanism. Prejudice can only be removed by focusing upon what is similar. If removal of prejudice becomes the focus of life, then any method which focuses upon contrast to determine right and wrong can not be utilized. Therefore if deductive reasoning must not be utilized to determine proper behavior, God's Word must be treated as just another opinion among many, and its relevance determined by means of the perception of the moment―through the use of inductive reasoning.
Making room for the middle ground―substituting "theory" for a priori.
"Deductive reasoning holds to a very high standard of correctness ... the truth of its premise guarantees the truth of its conclusion, there is no middle ground." Garth Kemerling
A liberal will not accept this definition. Instead he re-defines the premise as "a general theory," testing it through a narrow hypothesis (appropriately selected questions or statement), and then, through observation, confirm the general "theory." The liberal misrepresents deductive reasoning by linking it to an inductive-deductive cycle, "where the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true." (Garth Kemerling) The liberal will always tie deductive reasoning to a materialist speculative outcome. He must. This is the typical approach social engineers use to justify their desired humanistic outcome.
If you get trapped in their snare you will always fall victim to their outcome. When you are pressured to turn your position into another opinion, viewpoint or interpretation amongst many, you just moved from deductive to inductive reasoning by changing you deductive reasoning into what "seems to be" deductive reasoning. Changing an "I know" into an "I think" results in "I think I know." You just created a middle ground. In fact you just gave your ground to the liberal and he will eventually own not only it but you as well.
Deductive reasoning has been labeled as a "pre-enlightenment" thought process―recognizing God (a priori, higher authority) as the creator of the universe, a religious structure of thought. Inductive reasoning is the thought process of "the enlightenment," which accepts the world as non-created, and is viewed as a materialistic, "scientific," non-religious structure (alchemy). The latter form of "science" when applied to human behavior is that which the Apostle Paul warned Timothy,
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21
Avoid the oppositions (antithesis) of so-called science―the antithesis of so-named gnosis (knowing,) και αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως,―whereby those who use this process loose their faith. What is of concern to me is that the "church" is using the latter form of reasoning, the one Paul warned us about.
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Corinthians 11:3
The simplicity that is in Christ is obedience to the Heavenly Father. "It is written," as Jesus responded to Satan in the temptations, is a deductively reasoning statement, making behavior dependent upon the premise, which is unquestionable and universal.
For a detailed explanation of the difference between Inductive and Deductive reasoning and the use of Inductive reasoning to 'change' society see the articles:
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Part I: To Compare or to Contrast that is the question. Understanding the New World Order.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Part II: Inductive Reasoning and Karl Marx. Attacking the Patriarchal Family.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Part III: Inductive Reasoning and Hilda Taba.
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2011-2015