23 May 2014
Conclusions made from demographic case studies may have some significance for a percentage of people, but then it may simply be the spontaneous choices of free-will bearing individuals
Inductive and Deductive
A form of reasoning dating back to the ancient Greeks, this is a method of finding roots that support a proposed conclusion. It assumes a idea, and then seeks to prove it by evidence. This, in my view, is lunacy. This method has an individual making a claim of any kind he wants, and then seeks to justify it would evidence, be in-context or not. The concern is, if the evidence is shrewd and persuasive, then the theory is allowed to advance. But the nature of deception is that it doesn’t opening admit to being false – it appears to be true on the surface if it is going to be credible at all.
Truth must be pursued with little regard for the alternative. Deception will lead any astray who are not trained to know what truth is. Conversely, deductive reasoning begins with observed facts of reality, or at least stable, substantial theory’s, and follows their paths to conclusions from the, with little bias, if any at all. Both are susceptible to be misleading, but I would tend to lean towards deductive reasoning as a more sturdy means of conclusion making, because it does not seek to find evidences for claims that begin from little or no foundation.
This one seems to me to be a very dangerous tool, but also a very powerful one. If facts of reality are able to be the premises of one’s reasoning, based on first-hand accounts, objective sources, and direct encounters, then certain logical inferences can be made without too much reaching. Intuition takes on a certain philosophical mode of assumption. It see’s an activity in place, and predicts the overlapping variables connected to it. It’s not really reliable, unless the fundamental roots are dependable and sound. In this way, deductive reasoning is taking place. Prediction is still happening, but with more confidence. It’s like a ripple effect on a lake. When a stone touches the lake, the energy in the resulting wave reinforces the ripples of other contact points of the stone.
Psychological Case studies
Psychology, and it’s sister branch of sociology, is the study of people. But it uses logic, and the scientific method to produce stable precedents that are intended to be leaned on for future results. But the factor that is not considered, in my understanding, is the free will factor of man. Choice is not really acknowledged as a crucial factor in case studies. Case studies are usually conducted with a representative percentage of individuals to represent the larger population. But if it is really true that very individual is unique, and capable of making his or her own decisions, then how can the results of a case study be found to true outside of the group studied, or for that matter, outside of the season of life of the individuals involved in the case study?
I can see the attraction to the psychology field. It seeks to understand the element at the core of society: us. That would be great, except for the fact that it does not really take into account the greater nomenal element that composes the person. Psychology, as I understand it, looks at external evidences, and seeks to find quantity of same or similar evidences in larger spheres in order to make a credible claim that can be substantiated. It is taking spontaneously-observed situation, and seeking to justify it by looking for evidences that it is true. While this method can work, as previously stated, I also forsee the use of taking situations and even other case studies out of context in order to validate a particular claim or idea. Is it enough that it can persuade? It a lie is good enough, it would do what a lie does best – deceive us into thinking it is a truth…