Fundamental truths - Deductive Logic

The reason why I don't use inductive logic (at least in this thread) is because inductive logic relies upon examples and historical precedents, that can be and often are argued for years on end without progress.

The solution I presented is to use deductive logic, rather than to rely on your inductive logic and get into useless arguments.

Of course you don't accept the fundamental truths of the situation. If you did, your experimental data would reflect the methodology of your judgement.

The best I can do in any debate is to offer what I have for my position, contrast it with my opponent's position, you, and have the reader decide for himself. Not everyone will be convinced by me, and not everyone will be convinced by you. But it all depends upon whether they come about their judgements and beliefs through deductive logic, which is the arguing of fundamental truths, or through experimental results, which is a scientific method of analyzing humans and politics through the news and events independent of the fundamentals.

The best way I can explain fundamental truths to you or Bookworm, is to mention Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Now, that principle is a fundamental truth. It is true because it applies to everything. A fundamental truth is FALSE if it does not apply to everything. So if I say a fundamental truth of Bookworm is that she is bloodthirsty (as many anti-neocons accused neo neocon of) then the proof in the pudding is that Bookworm often disagrees with me when I take a position that is real bloodthirsty.

Inductive logic is to go around looking at this situation, event, person, and action and trying to see how it acts and what not. Then when you have the data, you derive your conclusions from that. Deductive logic starts with the conclusion first, then with the data. Science never starts with the conclusion first and then tries to get the data, bad science results. However, to derive truth does not require science, there are other methods and techniques.

Bookworm mentioned in a later post that she has fundamental beliefs, about the truth, that informs her judgement. Bookworm has included human behavior and beliefs with deductive and inductive logic, one step further than I have taken in this thread.

A simple test of Bookworm's inductive logic skills would be to see whether she can gather enough information and make a hypothesis that is backed up by the data she has collected. For example, with the drug test on tour de France, she has the data, and she has two mutually exclusive hypotheses. Instead of choosing one and trying to disprove it, she can, by using inductive logic, collect data and information in order to see which hypothesis is better supported by the evidence and the reasoning. Logically, only one option is true in a mutually exclusive situation. So one option is most of the time better supported by the data, Bookworm just has to find out which is which by digging up information she currently may not have.

Now an example of testing deductive logic, works the other way around. For example, I would say "If Bush is a liar, then what else would be true based upon that a priori?" From then on, I would construct a logical series of events and scenarios that MUST BE TRUE if the a priori belief, Bush is a liar, is true. Using this logic gate operation and code, I can create sub-logic routines that can be tested for truth or falseness. A couple of the subroutines says, then, if Bush is a liar, then he would have a propaganda apparatus. If Bush is a liar, he would have better popular support, ala Roosevelt and the other liars in the past who were very good at manipulating public opinion with deception. If Bush is a liar, then he would have excellent rhetorical abilities and his plans would contain extremely complex and deceptive details.

After I analyzed the subroutines, I came up with negatives on all of them. Deductive logic cannot and should not be used by idiots. Sherlock Homes, detectives, these people operate the way they do because of a reason, and also because they have ability. A guy who lacks the knowledge and the mental fortitude to make calculations, is unable to build and test logic gates. Neither can he debug them. Sure, maybe he could do it on paper, but in reality? With human beings as the logic gates? *shakes head*

The reason why deductive logic is so useful to human affairs, is because of how we think and how we believe. Everyone, you included bookworm, has something they believe in. So how can you make a scientific analysis of the thesis, if you already believe in one over the other? How is objectivity possible? It is not. People with prejudices, previous bad judgements, and so forth, cannot correct them if they cannot see why they were wrong. And without an inbuilt ability at introspective deductive logic, they are unable to see where they went wrong. If this, then that, if that then this, if this then not that, if not that, then not this. What kind of mental training, education, natural intellect, and good judgement is required for someone, like you bookworm, to analyze your own personal preconceptions and prejudices and verify whether they are correct or incorrect? Every human believes something. If we were all computers, then inductive logic would be all we would need in order to determine the truth or falseness of A or B. But we are not computers, we cannot analyse something without inbuilt bias. Therefore by taking into account our internal biases, we can build and debug logic gates based upon what should be true. If this, then that should be true. If not this, then that should not be true.

In Conclusion, I do not believe Clint understands deductive logic as a practical application while I think Bookworm does. It is a requirement for a person to change his mind. I cannot change Clint's mind. I can only show by contrast how his thinking compares to mine. The reason why I won't argue with you clint about the history of the Jews or tell you what I believe the Jews did or did not do to justify their state's existence, is because I am far more interested in your fundamental logic and your a priori assumptions. With that information, I can build a logic gate. With that information, I need not go looking for historical contexts trying to "disprove" your position.

It's a time saver. If Logic Gate 5 out of 5 X 10 to the 90 power logic gates is not true, then you discard the other 5 X10 to the 90th power logic conclusions. When debating, people draw up a list of 'evidence' and 'stuff' that can go down to the floor. Or at least take a supercomputer days to run through. It'll never end, one side can always bring something else to the picture and say "here, this counters your A." Which is returned by "this counters your counter to A" and on it goes until infinity.

Bookworm knows what I'm talking about because she's a lawyer, one of their purposes being to make a legal list and make sure it contains everything advantageous to proposition A. Reasonable doubt, is there for a reason. Rest your case sometime. But there is always some new evidence that can be found sooner or later.

I rest my case on the basis that Clint doesn't accept the fundamental nature of a democracy as being in favor of peace and the fundamental nature of terroists as requiring force to sustain their justification for existence. That is all that I need to know, and all that you need to know as well, fellow reader.