Theory: Liberals use deductive thinking, Conservatives rely on inductive reasoning.

Think of Sherlock Holmes. He gathered clues and then reached a conclusion. That's deductive reasoning.

But coming up with a theory and then looking for clues to support that theory is also valid in detective work. That's called inductive reasoning.

Now, Liberals, with their critical thinking skills, are deductive reasoners. They look at the facts and then, reach a conclusion. If the facts change, their conclusions change. It's all based on the facts.

Conservatives, who are more ideologues, are more inductive. Perfect example was the study of the Bell Curve where someone came up with a theory and used existing data to put together like a montage puzzle to prove that I.Q. was based on race. The key problems with the study, was that the researchers were biased, and the data they used was weak and refutable.

By the way, the Bell Curve, in case anyone forgets, was an early effort from the Right to use bad science to eliminate public money for social programs like head start which benefited poor black areas.

This is key to understanding the conservative mind. They are influenced by their ideologies and prejudices. They reach conclusions, and then pull in all the studies and information that supports that conclusion. Then they go on a full offensive strategy to (1) spread the meme so that people in their political camp can echo their soundbites and (2) flat out attack any data that challenges their conclusion. That includes rewriting reports and discrediting anyone who questions them.

And then, to further show the destructive nature of the inductive method as used by the conservatives, when liberals change their conclusions to fit new data as it comes up, the conservatives call them weak. This is why they saw Bush as a strong leader. Because Bush stuck to the same premise and never varied in his eight years of office. People who questioned his facts were attacked. Their patriotism was also questioned.

So the more we can take the time to dismantle their poor reasoning methods, the more a pattern will emerge. And once we have the evidence, we need to put it out there so that even their own people can see how their thought process is being hijacked by an ideologically driven reasoning method.

Also, this method of separating the truth from non-truth includes recognizing logical fallacies, statements masquarading as truth. Such examples of fallacy is begging the question, appeal to the emotions, appeal to the masses, attacking the person making the statement and not addressing the truth of the statement. One encounters these fallacies with Rush, Sean, Glenn, and of course, Sarah.

Can't someone come up with a lesson plan that can be taught in public schools?

Modern educational "process" doesn't believe in it. One need only see the math texts to prove that. Texts published by McGraw-Hill, run by a Bush relative.

It takes a brain and honesty.

Children should be taught about logic, faulty reasoning, logical fallacies, and incorrect (and sometimes dishonest) rhetorical tactics. They should also be taught about how PR people (especially marketers) "lie with the truth".

I suspect that the reason it's not done is that children would start going home and questioning many of their parents' cherished beliefs and their parents would then raise hell about it.

You can bet that if Republicans were to get their way and privatize education you would never see these things taught by corporate schools.

The reason PR propaganda is so effecrive IMO is that rhetoric is no longer heavily emphasized in school. Most propaganda/marketing techniques are transparent BS once one has been taught to think about them. But we couldn't have the masses thinking for themselves; they might demand higher wages, or even join or form a union! *shudder*

My elementary school teachers. But since I'm 55, most of them have long since retired.

Fallacies are oftentimes true, though. The main problem is that they making assesing their own truth value difficult (usually by obscuring or distracting) and are almost useless w/in dialogue.

"attacking the person making the statement and not addressing the truth of the statement"

You can show them the error of their reasoning and they will put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la-laaaaa..."

I think they only way is to waterboard them. After all, they tell us it is not torture, so it's okay.

And I have no idea what to make of it. I'm privileged to be a tad bit quicker/better learner than most people, so for quite a while now I've considered one of my duties as a writer and a person to be that I develop an understanding of certain highly complex matters that most people have neither the time nor the patience for, and having taken on most of the back-end slog-type work, elucidate this understanding in a way that's a) useful for others and b) hopefully a little less tedious and soul-killing than the initial learning process can sometimes be. (I happen to be a sorta facts geek, but there's denying that the process of assimilating huge amounts of info can be wearying if one is in the wrong mindset and does not have like several different coffeemakers brewing in regular rotation.)

But what I'm finding out is that even when you politely and considerately offer someone an in-depth look at the facts and the larger philosophical questions that inform a given issue, and even when you make a rhetorically humble attempt to show them why they should maybe give serious thought to this POV even though it may conflict with some of their deepest assumptions regarding the world, they oftentimes the end just do. not. care. They simply do not want to know, and will not accept coming to know. You wouldn't believe how many times I've sunk hours into developing personalized little argumentative breakdowns of an issue only for the person to respond with something like "well pretty much just fuck that."

?!?!?!?!?!

What do you even do then? As someone whose life has been shaped by books, and as someone who has dedicated his life to making them, I implicitly am the owner of a great faith when it comes to a reader's ability to be fundamentally changed by words. I can't remember the last time I dismissed out of hand an argument made in even the slightest show of good faith. What the hell can a person do when someone flat-out DOES NOT CARE about knowing, about coming to the truth through dialectic? This worries me intensely, and this worry has led to severe doubts about what I've chosen to do with my life. What's the point? And what is it that does matter, what is it I'm not getting? It seems as if the personal attachment to one's opinions trumps the less-personal imperative to know the world aright, and if that's the case - what then? That true change is caused not by the creation/dissemination of knowledge, but by manipulating the self-image of others? or, what?

and trying to figure out how to achieve the aims that liberals want to achieve when faced with this phenomenon. George lakoff thinks it can be done by framing the issues. I am not so sure.

With the Republicans it is always about achieving their aims (which have negative outcomes for everyone other than a few of their uber wealthy patrons) through framing that directs voters through some negative appeal to racism, resentment and greed. This method seems far more effective than facts and reasoned arguments.

Even in countries where there is less wealth disparity and rather generous social programs, the right wing (Republican) approach can take hold.

Ideology is a substitute for reasoning. When you become an ideologue all one has to do is look to your ideology for a position on anything, the brain can simply take a vacation.

using ideological reasoning.

Willful ignorance is a positive character trait to some people.

Loyalty & Faith. Two admirable qualities at times, and blinders at others when you have people who are unwilling to step away from those firewalls to face some modern problems.

the greater the dogmatism."

- Sir William Osler, British physicist.

Truer words were never spoken.

Hammer, meet nail. Ideology and dogmatism relieve people of the terrible burden of actually thinking.

Few things illustrate that mindset better than this exchange from a Futurama episode:

High Priest: Great wall of prophecy, reveal to us the will of God, so that we may blindly obey!
Priests: Free us from thought and responsibility!
High Priest: We shall read things off you!
Priests: Then do them!
High Priest: Your words guide us!
Priests: We're dumb!

Ideology itself is not incompatible with reason. Very easy to discuss/analyze ideology.

True.

Is the area of the brain most prevalence in use.

Cons allow their Reptilian brain to dictate behavior.

Liberals are most likely to have their Higher Brain as the director.

Getting back to Deductive Reasoning, it is paired with Inductive Reasoning. They are not antagonistic.

Making Deductions using Deductive Reasoning can result in Wisdom or Folly depending on whether ones Objective observations are correct or flawed. But it does depend on Inductive Reasoning.

When you're writing a paper, you either gather facts and make a conclusion at the end of the paper based on those facts; or you begin with a hypothesis and look for data to support it.

Would that help to separate the definitions enough to understand the points I'm trying to make?

But inductive and deductive reasoning are not incompatible with eachother. You're trying to paint one form of of reasoning as always being superior to the other. The fact is, most intelligent people use a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning.

Teabaggers, collectively, have the reasoning skills of a chicken.

is to distort the language beyond its natural range.

To cherry-pick amongst plausible lies to support ones prejudices and favorite fantasies is NOT reasoning. That is itself a logical fallacy, a sign of faulty reasoning, at best, and chicanery to the point of criminality at worst.

Inductive reasoning: Definition from Answers.com

Adjusting a course of action based upon a limited amount of information gathered. It is a process where one starts from a specific experience and draws inferences ...
www.answers.com/topic/inductive-reasoning



Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that this definition of inductive reasoning excludes mathematical induction, which is considered to be a form of deductive reasoning. Though many dictionaries define ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning



Inductive reasoning - Definition - Dictionary, Encyclopedia and ...

This article is about induction in philosophy and logic. Inductive reasoning is the counter to deductive reasoning. For other article subjects named induction see induction.
www.wordiq.com/definition/Inductive_reasoning



What is inductive reasoning? definition and meaning

Method of reasoning from particular to general; the mental process involved in creating generalizations from the observed phenomenon or principles.
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/inductive-reasoning.html




Deduction & Induction - Social Research Methods


In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive approaches. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific
www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php


Inductive reasoning - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is ...


... consider the term "inductive logic" a misnomer because the validity of inductive reasoning is not dependent on the rules of formal logic which is by definition only ...
www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Inductive_reasoning


Induction (philosophy) - Definition - Dictionary, Encyclopedia and ...

This article is about induction in philosophy and logic. Inductive reasoning is the counter to deductive reasoning. For other article subjects named induction see induction.
www.wordiq.com/definition/Induction_(philosophy)




Inductive Reasoning . Disciplines > Argument > Types of Reasoning ... Inductive arguments are always open to question as, by definition, the conclusion is a bigger bag than the ...
changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/induction.htm

In mental shorthand I think of it this way; deductive reasoning is the process of eliminating false premise until the only one remains, whereas inductive reasoning is the process of adding evidence until only one consensus remains.

Both are valid and both have their place. Neither are seen in abundance at teabagger rallies.

Many liberals are for gun control, even though there is no data to support gun control decreases murders.

Though, I'm not so sure that a gun control enthusiast would agree with you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When they get really good at it, they are called "statesmen".

:hi:

Yes, but they do try to push "facts" which they know their supporters will eat up. It's usually misinformation. They maintain the semblance of logic, because, afterall, we're in the age of the internet and people assume their side has the facts.

You look at FoxNews and realize how easily they get misled when they think FoxNews is giving them those facts.

It's a very interesting book. Altemeyer's a sociologist who's been studying authoritarianism for some 40 years. One of the trends he's found in authoritarians is a difficulty with logic. When they hear a statement they agree with, they tend to assume the reasoning used to reach that conclusion is sound. For instance, when presented with a statement like this:

"Fish live in the ocean. Sharks live in the ocean. Therefore, sharks are fish."

Authoritarians tend to rate that as a valid argument much more often than non-authoritarians. When asked why they thought the argument was valid, they say, "because sharks are fish".

Listen to Rush Limbaugh or any other right-wing talker for 5 minutes and you'll hear how much they depend on that element in their audience. They begin with a premise the audience wants to believe, then just whip up the silliest nonsense to reach that conclusion. The audience ignores the faulty argument and just embraces the conclusion.

:hi:

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy.

Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be “valid”) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion.

The classic example of a deductively valid argument is:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
Therefore:
(3) Socrates is mortal.

It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is deductively valid.

Any deductive argument that fails to meet this (very high) standard commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious. This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but not certain. Arguments of this kind, arguments that aren’t deductively valid, are said to commit a “formal fallacy”...

An example of a strong inductive argument would be:

(1) Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
Therefore:
(2) The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.

Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments commit fallacies in addition to formal fallacies. It is these “informal fallacies” that are most often described by guides to good thinking, and that are the primary concern of most critical thinking courses and of this site...

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

The Study of Logic was formalized by the ancient Greeks and supported up until at least 1965, when I encountered it. Since then, it has been discarded along with most rigorous study of hard science and other disciplines, which are considered "too difficult" or "irrelevant" to the masses.

My guess is that extremists on the left and right tend to use the same types of reasoning.

I agree that there is a difference in the way the left and the right think; but my guess would be that the main difference is in the original assumptions that we make.

People don't want to hear that here. It violates the original assumption.

very PC. But if you adhere strongly to critical thinking, you can, at least, see when you're going down that path and make up your own mind if it's worth the deviation.

Story today in GD. George Bush is angry that Obama is taking credit for killing Osama Bin Laden. Every public statement we've heard so far from Bush or Cheney has been gracious, and the article is based on an unnamed, "anonymous" source.

Yet people are lining up to express outrage and shout "fuckhead." They assume it is true, because of what they want to believe.

I could give you 100 other examples where the reaction to stories both here and on FR is predictable based not on the facts of the story, but on the "D" or "R" after the person's name in the story.

It is not an indictment of liberals. It is an indictment of human beings and our tendency toward tribal thinking. And it is an omnipresent fact on DU.

while the more extreme edges of the spectrum should be more prone to employing logical fallacies. The data I've read suggests no direct relation between political views and logical thought. What it does show is that, as the individual's natural deference to authority increases, their ability to reason seems to decrease.

If there is a difference in the ability to reason logically between the political middle and the left in this country, I expect the trend would be that it's actually a bit lower in the middle-- if we assume the deference to authority decreases as you move further left.

You appear to have jumped to some conclusion without any basis whatsoever.

On reflection, I see you were saying we all reason and think alike, but have different assumptions. That I would agree with. I've read perfectly valid and data-supported arguments from staunch right-wingers, and the only reason I disagreed with them was that they were constructed on certain assumptions I didn't share about human nature, or societal ideals, or whatever.

Induction takes a known sample and uses it to make generalized assumptions about the broader population. Idealogues work in reverse. They begin with a we-know-it-to-be-true-because-the-Bible-says conclusion and then comb through the entire population in order to cherrypick a sample that confirms their biases.

The problem is not that conservatives use inductive logic -- it's that conservatives don't use logic at all. For them, the emotional conviction comes first and the facts must then be made to fit.

and much more succinctly than I could manage...

The repubs aren't using inductive reasoning. If they were, there would be some measure of accuracy to what they say. Inductive reasoning would claim that since the sun has risen every day, it's certain to rise tomorrow too. Repubs/cons would say that the sun has risen every day, but it won't tomorrow because Obama is a sekrit muslin commmonist facist.

deductive research method, versus inductive research methods. Instead of reasoning. If you can limit the definition to align with the traditional research methods, I think you can see the separation better.

LOL!

Which incidentally is another problem with the modern-day Right: the veneration of deliberate ignorance. Sadly, that's a problem that has nothing to do with modes of reasoning and everything to do with base, reptilian emotion. You can't analyze the thought process of someone who is proud to be stupid, because they ain't thinking :)

The more conservative you are, the more likely you are to have a lowed tolerance for ambiguity, especially when it comes to ethics and morality or the reasons for why things are the way they are. Liberals can be content saying "I don't know right now, I'll go find out." This doesn't upset a liberal. Liberals usual first "gut" response if you will is to be curious. That curiosity leads us to find reasons, motivations, and causes for various events and subjects in our lives. Conservatives, OTOH, will do anything they can to stave off the feeling that they don't know what's going on. They literally can't tolerate it and quick answers (SLOGANS) provide relief from their anxiety.

conservative values. But I couldn't keep my eyes closed shut long enough to go along with the crowd.

I think this is the most relevant difference.

Thanks.

"As truth is gathered, I rearrange"
from "Perpetual Change" by Yes

More like they fixate on some shit some blowhard tells them then refuse to accept facts. That isn't reasoning - it's a knee-jerk reaction.

position, we should ask them to explain their reasoning. Then step back for the brain explosion.

While I feel you detailed conservatives' methods exactly, I'd question whether or not it qualifies as inductive reasoning, or reasoning at all. An example of inductive reasoning I was given in school was this: Concluding that it will rain every day of the month because it has rained the first four days of that month. The conservative approach is essentialy the reverse. Start with the desired conclusion and use only the examples with fit that conclusion.

I think it goes, if you walk out in the morning and see water on the ground, you assume it's because it rained last night.

Inductive research begins with a premise, and then pulls studies to support that position. That is probably a better way of explaining the difference I'm trying to point out. You begin with the wrong premise and all your data is going to be equally flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.

then later try to gin up some evidence, however false, spurious or irrelevant, to support it.

The reichwing "mind" at work.

When confronted with a question or issue I haven't encountered before, my first thoughts are (1) what are the knowable extrinsic facts about this issue? and (2) who is benefiting from Idea X and what are their motivations?

Collect information first, then analyze it logically. I've always operated that way, but it's easy for me to do so - I'm Asperger's, so EVERYTHING gets processed through the logic circuits.

You have it backwards. Inductive reasoning is the scientific method--gathering all possible samples, testing them for some specific criteria, and forming a conclusion. Obviously, gathering all possible examples is pretty difficult. More often, a person sets out to disprove a conclusion through the exception disproves the theory. Deductive reasoning involves starting with a positively true major premise and applying it to a specific example. Consider the famous example: All men die; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates will die. The major premise here seems unassailable until you apply the Christian doctrine that Jesus didn't really die. You could change the syllogism by asserting that Jesus was not a man and the basic premise holds, except Christians claim Jesus was both man and god. Anyway, I would say, were I to make such an iffy generalization, that ideologues apply the deductive method--they start with, usually, a faulty basic premise such as "All murder is wrong" but violate their own basic premise by advocating the death penalty and war. And, naturally, you can see why ideologues generally abhor the scientific method. But notice that, even here, I have to qualify my premise by saying "generally."

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/two_methods_of_reasoning.php

"Deductive reasoning moves from a general premise to a more specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning moves from specific premises to a general conclusion. These two methods of reasoning will produce two different kinds of results."

Let's not forget that conservatives don't own the patent on poor reasoning methods, bad logic and knee-jerk reactions. We need to be careful not to fall off our own high horses - read enough DU threads and you'll see plenty of examples of poor reasoning and all-around dumbassery from "our" side, too. People of all ideological stripes are subject to reasoning in a way that reaches the conclusion they desire. Confirmation bias and other roadblocks to objective reasoning affect everybody, not just the right wing. Let's dispassionately examine our own biases and preconceived ideas - and we all have them - so we don't fall into the same logic traps that we sneer at "them" for.

I think we all at some point reach a basic set of conclusions that we apply to everything.

I would say conservatives are a lot more rigid as a result, but I think it's human nature for almost everyone to do it, including liberals.

evidence, whereas liberals look at the facts, make deductions and then modify the script.

this is why sometimes family members talk past each other.
They are not on same wave length.

I think it's in line with the OP, and scientifically fleshes out a lot of what you're saying:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

Here's another. This is not a new issue, it appears.

they come to an emotional conclusion based on greed and/or hate, then search for fig leaves to dress it up.

they toss out many, many fig leaves and see which ones stick (to mix metaphors a bit).

it's DEMOCRATS and LOGICAL INDEPENDENTS who use logic to either accept or reject their various fig leaves, to varying degrees.


republicans don't know and don't care if their arguments are based on logic, distraction, obfuscation, lies, religion, morality, whatever. ALL THEY CARE ABOUT is whether or not their argument WORKS, i.e., how much resistance or acceptance they get from the rest of us when they use those arguments.


that's neither deductive nor inductive reasoning.

it's simply experimentation.

misled for so long, that, yeah, all it takes is propaganda.

I'm not sure I can find a logical reason why more democrats chose Obama over Hillary during the primary contests.

I think Obama had a better slogan and provided a better vision of the future.

If logic ruled Hillary would have won. I think at some level everyone is susceptible to an emotional conclusion.

nor am i saying that emotion is entirely irrelevant to the political process.

furthermore, obama won in part because he had an absolutely brilliant strategic team, they played the primary game to win. hillary adopted a strategy of putting nearly all her eggs in the super tuesday basket and she had to scramble to find a fallback position. remember that a large part of politics, especially primaries, is not just the voters making a side-by-side choice, but also how successful the campaign organizations and fundraising aspects are. the clintons are obviously no slouches in this regard, but you have to give obama credit for running a brilliant campaign from start to finish.

I see little evidence of inductive reasoning on the parts of Repukes because inductive reasoning starts with facts and generalizes -- Repukes do not tend to start with facts. In fact, insofar as they reason at all, Repukes tend to use deductive reasoning: starting with fantasy generalizations and deducing fallacies from them.

Tunnel vision, is how I read that.



http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/two_methods_of_reasoning.php

You can't believe in God with deductive reasoning. Therefore, based on your theory a liberal who believes inGod would be conflicted at best.

The difference between liberals and conservatives isn't a logic or reasoning thing. Lots of liberals grow up to be conservatives. Many conservatives become enlightened into liberalism.

The key is where the ultimate responsibiliy lies. Liberals tend to think the group (or society) is ultimately responsible. Conservatives tend to think the individual is responsible.

This is why conservatives tend to support capital punishment. It punishes the individual. Liberals tend to think that environmental pressures greatly contribute to the conditions that give rise to crime.

This is why liberals tend to support abortion. Society is a better place when women can seek out safe medical procedures. Conservatives focus on the individual fetus.

Conservatives, focusing on the individual, want a smaller gov't so there is more personal liberty. Liberals are willing to accept a larger gov't if it provides benefits to all members of society. Better roads. Safer neighborhoods. Cleaner water.

Conservatives tend to be capitalists. Liberals tend to be communists (or socialists if you like that term better.)

The key is where the focus is. On the individual or on the group.

Want to convert a conservative? Dont teach them deductive reasoning. Convince them that happiness should be measured at the group level and not the personal level.

Actually, Progressives don't confuse reasoning with loyalty and faith. The latter two can sometimes interfere with that formula, that you only need two points to make a straight line.

I don't feel like trotting out the science behind it but reason in humans is an illusion. We make up our minds one way or the other and then come up with justifications after the fact. Makes us uncomfortable but it is true. People change their minds rarely. It literally creates mental pain to do so.

You assert:

"Now, Liberals, with their critical thinking skills, are deductive reasoners. They look at the facts and then, reach a conclusion. If the facts change, their conclusions change. It's all based on the facts."

Looking at the facts and then reaching a conclusion based upon the facts IS inductive reasoning. And changing your conclusion to meet changing facts is known as Bayesian Inference.

The classic example demonstrating the problem with basing conclusions on observed facts is Bertrand Russel's / Nassim Taleb's Turkey example....

Suppose the turkeys on a turkey farm try to form some conclusions about their life based on the facts they observe. Every day the farmer feeds them and gives them water and cleans their accomodations. This occurs without fail, over and over. Based on the observable facts the turkeys conclude that the farmer loves them and wants them to be happy and will continue to feed water and clean. Every day the strength of this conclusion is affirmed by a new round of feeding, watering, and cleaning.

Right up until the second week in November. Suddenly everything they thought they knew is devestatingly, catastrophically proven wrong.

a general premise, allowing the facts to direct the conclusion. With Inductive reasoning, the premise is more narrow:

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/two_methods_of_reasoning.php

But that is NOT the case. If we mean to make an argument about clear thinking, it is vital that we are thinking clearly about clear thinking.

If we are basing our conclusions on observable facts, we are engaged in INDUCTIVE reasoning. Inductive reasoning proceeds from the particular ( the facts we observe ) to the general ( the conclusion or generalization we reach ) If we are then adjusting our conclusions baded upon changing/new facts we are engaged in Bayesian Inference - a form of INDUCTIVE reasoning.


If Conservatives are basing their conclusions on General premises ... they are engaged in DEDUCTIVE reasoning. Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the particular. Conclusions from deductive reasoning can be valid logically, but still false if the inital premise is not correct.

Example. All swans are white. This creature is a swan. Therefore this creature is white.

This is logically valid, but false. All swans are NOT white, The Premise is invalid.

I always viewed Inductive research as beginning with a premise, then hand-picking through the data to support that premise.

And Deductive research, was a general statement that critically looked at the data, pros and cons, and reached a final conclusion.

Read the link you yourself provided

Direct quote:
"Most inductive reasoning is not based upon exhaustive evidence, and therefore the form is incomplete."

This is what I'm getting at. It will give you an incomplete picture, unless you apply the method honestly, and continue to churn through the data. Something which conservatives are not inclined to do.


Deductive reasoning, however, begins with a wider, general premise (open mind, per se) and the conclusion will fall within that premise based on the facts they uncover.

They both begin with a premise. And to make it even more confusing (mind-blowing, man), in true research you use both methods--back to back. The conclusion of inductive reasoning, can be the premise for deductive reasoning.

You cannot "disagree" with the formal definition of Inductive reasoning and Deductive reasoning ....

They are what they are.

From you link:

"Reasoning can run in two opposite directions. Deductive reasoning moves from a general premise to a more specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning moves from specific premises to a general conclusion. "

You are trying to construct a deductive argument based on a false premise.

The definition of Deduction and Induction are NOT as you believe ... No matter how much you believe it.

Moreover, confromted with the actual definition of Induction and Deduction, you are not accepting the new facts and readjusting your conclusion.

Exactly, what I'm talking about. Inductive research, if we're using this for a metaphor for the way that conservatives think, begin with a specific observation. Why that's going to be flawed, is because that specific observation is often based on their prejudices.

Check the link.

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

You assert:

"Liberals, with their critical thinking skills, are deductive reasoners. They look at the facts and then, reach a conclusion. If the facts change, their conclusions change. It's all based on the facts."

Looking at the link you just provided .... which research method starts with facts/observations? Answer - INDUCTION
From the link ... INDUCTIVE reasoning = OBSERVATION - PATTERN - TENTATIVE HYPOTHESIS - THEORY.



You further assert:

"But coming up with a theory and then looking for clues to support that theory is also valid in detective work. That's called inductive reasoning."

Again looking at the link you just provided ..... which research method starts with a theory? Ansewr - DEDUCTION
From the link ... DEDUCTIVE reasoning = THEORY - HYPOTHESIS - OBSERVATION - CONFIRMATION

You have it exactly backwards.

Again ... we have to be sure we are think clearly about thinking clearly.

What I see, which still holds up, is that Deductive reasoning applies stricter testing methods between the premise and the conclusion. Which is why I always associate that method with progressives, because of the Critical Thinking aspect. So, "Liberals, with their critical thinking skills, apply deductive research methods to their premises." Can we agree with that?

As for Inductive Reasoning. Instead of starting out with the word "theory," I should have said "premise." Inductive Reasoning comes up with a premise based on an observation. Why I see that as a problem when conservatives apply it, is because their observations are going to be subjective and that generally implies it will be tainted with prejudice. And, further with Inductive reasoning, they can gather data loosely to support that flawed premise--not applying the more stricter testing methods you see in deductive reasoning. The Bell Curve was a good example of this process.

Did I clean it up, enough?

Having observed the facts FIRST I feel ready to posit that the TS:

1. has his semantics all mixed up
2. has begun with a theory and then searched for facts supporting his theory, ignoring facts to the contrary.

My first post has been completely and utterly confirmed (as it pertains to TS)

You seem married to the idea that Deduction is somehow "better" than Induction. And as such determined to define "Liberal thinking" as Deductive regardless of evidence that, if it starts with facts and observations it's INDUCTION.

But applying them as metaphors for the way that Liberals and Conservatives process ideas, I can see that Deduction undergoes more rigorous testing. As for inductive research, you have the Bell Curve to figure out the error of that method. Garbage in, Garbage out.

There is nothing in the definition of Deduction or Induction that implies that Deduction is somehow more "rigorous" than Induction.

You are wedded to this idea and it is just NOT correct.

That term is applied to Deductive Research where it's not applied to Inductive. Anything that requires testing where something else does not, can be viewed as more rigorous.

If you can take liberties with "Cherry-picking, sloppy, slipshod and shoddy." Then I'm entitled to "rigorous."

Oily bugger.

Employing induction, observing all your responses and not cherry picking them, I detected a pattern and formed a tentative hypothesis that you are hopelessly wedded to your incorrect definition of induction. I TESTED this tentative hypothesis by reading your most recent post and have now formed the theory that you are indeed hopelessly lost and that it is pointless to continue.

See how Testing fits into induction? According to my theory ... Probably not.

Really. Do you really believe I'm implying that progressives don't use inductive research? Is that what you really think?

Again from the link:

"These two methods of reasoning have a very different "feel" to them when you're conducting research. Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses"

So it is INDUCTINO that is called more open and exploratory and DEDUCTION more narrow.

I'm mixing metaphors, so let's straighten them out. I appreciate your comments.

Inductive Reasoning is allowed to gather data loosely to support its premise. This I pointed out in the beginning: "Perfect example was the study of the Bell Curve where someone came up with a theory and used existing data to put together like a montage puzzle to prove that I.Q. was based on race"

First mistake, I should have used "premise," not theory. But the picture of a montage puzzle describes exactly the process of an open-ended and exploratory method. Thus, Inductive.

We good on this point?

There is nothing in the definition of INDUCTIVE reasoning that implies it is shoddy, loose, or somehow slipshod.

Now SLOPPY inductive reasoning can be all those things. But so can SLOPPY Deductive reasoning.

You seem to have this irrational dislike of Inductive reasoning. Perhaps if we used it's other name ... the scientific method, you wouldn't find it so distasteful for Liberals to employ Induction?

I never said shoddy, slipshod or sloppy. I even said that in true research, the two methods would be used back to back. So I don't have a problem with Inductive reasoning, and, since it begins with observation, I use it quite often myself.

However, where it goes awry is how the conservatives use it. BECAUSE it begins with observation, their research is going to be flawed from the start. I gave you the Bell Curve as the perfect example. Have you ever read it? It's composed of different studies all specifically hand-picked because they support the flawed premise that I.Q. is based on race. They did not conduct their own research. They hand-picked other people's research because it supported their flawed premise.

"I always viewed Inductive research as beginning with a premise, then hand-picking through the data to support that premise. "

If that is not "Cherry picking data" and hence slipshod and shoddy what is?

Here is the bottom line. DEDUCTION starts with a Premise/Theory. INDUCTION starts with facts / observations.

Your entire argument would be OK if you switched Liberals = Deductive / Conservatives = Inductive for Liberals = Inductive / Conservatives = Deductive

or maybe better:

Liberals are careful Inductive thinkers while Conservatives are sloppy Inductive thinkers

But in a rant about Logic you CAN'T misconstrue Induction and Deduction and expect to be taken seriously.

First, my description of inductive research was correct. You do have the freedom to hand-pick the data. That's what they mean by it being "more open-ended and exploratory." It's the basis of many a college research paper and what all those strange hieroglyphics in the bibliography are all about.

I'm chagrined at your exaggeration. "Cherry picking data" in quotes? Really? Sir, please. I'm shocked at the liberties you're taking to prove your point, as weak as it may be. I never stated as such, thus the quotes are entirely misleading.

Inductive reasoning, sir, does not always begin with fact. It can be an inference or an observation, which I'm sure we can agree are subjective matters. And because they're subjective, the entire exercise is moot if all you do is gather information to support a flawed premise. Because this research paper style of information gathering can be observed time and time again with the right-wingers, it is warranted to apply Inductive research to them. Because they can use a more "open-ended and exploratory" method, it's easier to game the data.

This is all for the basis of forming a metaphor, not to find the next alternative energy resource.

We can disagree, but that's how I see it.

Inductive reasoning is indispensable, and IMO is much more versatile than deductive. (I say this as someone who geeked out on deductive logic for several years, eventually led away from it to less formal stuff through Wittgenstein's late stuff.) For example I think inductive reasoning is pretty much the only tool in the shed when it comes to historical interpretation. Historians have different sets of principles that allow them to judge when they have made inductive inferences of the highest quality possible, I'm pretty sure.

Where the disconnect begins is how the process becomes derailed when someone brings in strong prejudices.

Hope you don't mind if I use your words?

Just wanted to add this in here.
We seem to have input biases that shape our political outlook as well. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself. Individuals are classified, based on their cultural values, as either "individualists" or "communitarians," and as either "hierarchical" or "egalitarian" in outlook. (Somewhat oversimplifying, you can think of hierarchical individualists as akin to conservative Republicans, and egalitarian communitarians as liberal Democrats.)
<http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1>

I'm not sure if it's in the same line of thought, but I have watched how people tend to accept ideas when it already sounds in line to their way of thinking. Though this sounds obvious, some of those ideas may involve thoughts which are not often spoken out loud. For example, racist ideas. So, when people hear the dog-whistle racist comments, it opens their minds to absorb whatever other thing is on the agenda.

I also saw a documentary on WWII, where, in the propaganda war, they said the best way to deceive the enemy, is to tell them what they think they already know.

I think it's far simpler - conservatives don't think, they react (generally speaking.)Their motives tend to be almost entirely linear whereas we progressives tend to be more circumspect.

TS, I think you're making the mistake of reading yourself into the conservative mindset - that is to say you're thinking "what would MY thoughts be if I saw the world as a conservative does?" And before you go looking for examples to support your thesis, remember that's what you're accusing them of doing and what I'm suggesting you would do if you were to attempt conservatism ;)

before taking the liberty of calling them batshit crazy.

Welcome to DU.

But alas you're making the same mistake progressives often do in examining the conservative mindset and it's actually quite damaging to our cause because progressives often fail to understand the nature of conservatives(sometimes) appeal to swing voters. I'll explain and I sincerely hope people listen. My premise is based on the general precept that basic patterns of thought can be fundamentally different between cultures and individuals and that without a comparative study of those patterns one can never hope to understand the opposing prospective - that they will simply regard everything you say as a straw-man because you are essentially, not talking about them. Take for instance the common western expression mind vs matter. In the far east that is not a common idiom, they're more likely to think of the universe in terms of mind vs form. Seems like a bit of minutia but the implications lead to a fundamentally different world view. If you say the former then you're inclined to think of your consciousness as something distinct and separate from the material world. If you say the latter then the two are incorporated and you can't make a distinction between consciousness and the material world. This is why eastern religion talks about being one with all things and western religion talks about a CREATED universe. Even western atheists express their lack of belief in terms of a created universe rather than one that arises spontaneously and mutually WITH consciousness. Thus when an atheist argues his position to a Buddhist his argument is a straw man and he is utterly incapable of comprehending the Buddhist's though.



Applied to progressives and conservatives. You correctly identified that progressives are prone to a highly analytical mind set but when you describe conservatives you are doing so from a highly analytical mind set (you begin to see the problem here.) The truth is Conservatives are far more likely to operate on reactions, hunches and gut feelings then either inductive or deductive reasoning and while we might enjoy patting our own backs for our superior logic there are times where progressives fall prey to analysis paralysis whereas I don't often see that from the right (often for the worse.) Basically what I'm saying is you can't think your way into the conservative mind set or you'll spend your whole time swatting at phantoms. Your arguments about their motives and character will fall on deaf ears outside of progressive circles and you'll find yourself unable to influence people. This was the appeal of Clinton. He was a thinking man but he also had the character of a guy who might go off half cocked and make snap, gut decisions. This allowed him to resonate with independents in a way that rationalist progressives rarely do. It also meant that the more he acted on his impulses and the more the right criticized him, the more they looked hypocritical and his polls actually increased. You see, the right also fails to conduct comparative study of basic thought patterns and thus fail to understand the actual nature of their appeal. We should use this to our advantage and stop with the straw men.

The conservatives use pseudo science in order to sell their ideology. It's important to point that out because they need to appear credible, and scientific research can do that for them. To suggest that they don't understand scientific method well enough to know how to game the data, is underestimating them.

Read that book today, and try not to laugh and/or cry

It was pure eugenicist crap, with a klan hood on top

And it hasn't failed my notice that the right-wingers are now trying to use the same pseudo-research using Economics and the anchor baby thing!

And most of us went 'get the fuck out of here!' and who knew it would have that much racist staying power.

Of course one look at their 'methods' showed the whole argument was built on a house of nonexistent cards.

But the knuckle dragging mouth breathers don't exactly 'reckon' the science of sampling.