Journal Entry #9: Informal, Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

A syllogism is a logical appeal that is used in deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning combines statements to determine facts, and consists of two premises and a conclusion. For example:

All cows eat grass.
Marley is a cow.
Therefore Marley eats grass.

What is interesting about deductive reasoning is that the conclusions that are derived may not necessarily be true in practice (because one or more of the clauses are untrue), however they may still be valid, and completely plausible when interpreted without any external knowledge. For example:

All pigs can fly.
I am a pig.
Therefore I can fly.

Whilst pigs cannot actually fly, the conclusion derived by deductive reasoning is valid because it logically follows the two premises that are stated. We use deductive reasoning in everyday life, however it is very easy for us to arrive at valid, yet untrue conclusions because some of the information we have used in our premises is incorrect.

Whilst deductive reasoning goes from the general to the specific, inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general. Facts are determined from repeated observations. For example, you may notice that whenever you've dropped a pen, it's fallen towards the ground, which leads you to the conclusion that all pens fall downwards when released from a height above the ground. This form of reasoning is subject to human error and personal interpretation (as conclusions are derived from personal experiences). It can also be argued that due to uncertainties in our universe, we can not say that observations that have repeated themselves throughout our lives can be labelled as forgone conclusions. I will be talking about uncertainties in my next entry, which might help to expand on this idea.

Journal Entry #8: Politics and Debate

Having recently returned from a Model United Nations conference in Istanbul, I have begun to ponder over the nature of reasoning and arguments in politics and debate.

One strategy that is commonly used in politics is “false dilemma,” which assumes that there are only two alternatives to a situation. Politicians often deceive voters by telling them that if they are not elected then there will be grave consequences. Ostensibly, voters only have two options – voting for the politicians or suffering the ‘bad’ alternative outcome.

Another strategy that arose multiple times during the MUN debates was “loaded questions,” such as, “does your country always place its people before its power?” This type of question provoked hesitated answers, where the responder would be admitting to something. These tactics are often used in politics, when a politician targets another politician by presenting him with a black and white question that poses two extremes.

One form of informal reasoning that is particularly prominent in debate is “ad hominem” (meaning “attack the man” in Latin), which targets the person rather than the argument. A politician might argue against another politician’s personal life, his customs and religious views, rather than his political views.

What I find particularly interesting is the fact that many people have a natural tendency and desire to categorize themselves as “democrats” or “republicans” or “conservatives”. This categorization and generalization of their views often leads them towards inherently adopting other new views of their political party, with little evaluative reasoning. I suppose it’s all just politics.

Journal Entry #7: Science, Imagiation and Reasoning (String Theory)

String Theory is a modern scientific phenomenon that has stirred heated debates among physicists. On the most basic level, it is the idea that within all matter - within every tiny subatomic particle exists tiny rings of vibrating energy known as strings.

What is most striking is how scientists are capable of deriving the wildest physical theories and images from mathematical formulae. To an extent, this stimulates both their imaginative faculties and their sense of reasoning. Scientists have often jeopardized their reputation and careers by exhibiting their bizarre theories on strings to the scientific community. However, can it not be argued that all accepted scientific theories, by nature, are no different from string theory, in that we are unable to prove or disprove it? We cannot prove or disprove these theories for the simple reason that we are incapable of forecasting the future. From what I have gathered, it seems that scientists are reluctant to accept such theories as string theory due to the fact that it is too unconventional, and goes against other widely accepted theories. For our imagination, the idea of strings is too vast to fully comprehend, scientists are resistant to change the theories they have already accepted, as it will require to rethink and reconstruct the physical image in their imagination.

It is in the human nature to hold onto what we already have, but often to move forward in the field of science we must open ourselves to new theories. We should embrace new ideas (with caution).