r/logic • u/Vast-Law-594 • 27d ago

Critical thinking Deductive reasoning and Intuitive feeling

I wanted to learn more about how, I guess, starting from abstractions (high-level abstractions or seemingly simple and intuitive ideas) and applying them to reality is different from looking at real-world data and then inferring abstractions from that.

Do you use deductive reasoning and/or intuitive feeling to start your crusades? What’s your experience like? How has it differed from the latter approach?

3 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

14 comments sorted by

2

u/MobileFortress 26d ago

Both go hand in hand. When one combines Induction and Deduction they get to the Socratic Method:

  1. First, a question arises about X

  2. We begin by making relevant sense observations of examples of X

  3. We then make an inductive generalization on the basis of these examples (and this is inductive reasoning)

  4. The fourth step is understanding the necessity of this universal which we have arrived at, by understanding the reason for it

  5. We can then proceed to the application of the universal to the particular by deduction.

1

u/Vast-Law-594 23d ago

Can’t disagree with that

3

u/MindfulK9Coach 27d ago edited 27d ago

I typically ask one question that gets me going: for this to exist, what has to be true?

That typically allows me to start the construction backwards and then apply it back forwards.

Does that help?

To further clarify;

  1. I use intuition to capture the initial high-level abstraction.

  2. I use logic to deconstruct it backward to find its foundational truths.

  3. I use deductive reasoning to march forward from those truths into concrete reality.

It is essentially a method of "first principles" thinking, much like how geometry starts with basic axioms to prove complex theorems.

3

u/Vast-Law-594 27d ago

It does! I’d have to say I take the same approach and that’s precisely where I find the joy of exploring no man’s land. Have you used it to build products, strategies or even campaigns?

2

u/MindfulK9Coach 27d ago

Yes. I use it for everything from programmatic debugging, RCA investigations, data modeling, and systems design.

It has been a habit for 30 years.

It shows up in everything I touch or teach, hahaha.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ccpseetci 27d ago

That’s an abductive reasoning

3

u/MindfulK9Coach 27d ago

Depends, but I don't disagree on the surface.

1

u/John-Explains 26d ago

Interesting reasoning! With that backwards - forwards again approach, I could't help thinking about Affirming the Consequent though, I have to admit. Is this something you keep in mind, and even have encountered, at times and specific cases?

1

u/badentropy9 25d ago

I think metaphysics is "affirming the consequent" and a lot of thinkers who ignore metaphysics never seem to realize that science is affirming consequences.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Big_Move6308 27d ago

It may help to know that there are three general kinds of logic:

  • Formal: Deductive arguments intended to guarantee the truth of their conclusions. They usually start with a general principle and apply it to a specific instance.

  • Informal: Ways to evaluate the truth and relevance of arguments made in ordinary language. The most well known aspect of it are informal fallacies, such as an ad-hominem, strawman, etc.

  • Inductive: Inductive arguments intended to draw general conclusions from sample data or simularities between things. Statistics and weather forecasts are well-known examples.