3 Logics

The remaining two introductory articles will explore why “logic” does not guarantee “truth” and why it is that people might “know” different “truths”. After these two philosophical articles, the tone of “Point of Being” will shift to a more artistic and literary tone to analyze the world we live in by means of analogy. We begin with two logics: inductive and deductive.

One of the most famous examples used to show “deductive reasoning” is the fictional character named Sherlock Holmes, who solves crimes by taking very little evidence and reaching the right conclusion about what happened. However, this is a misconception given that Sherlock’s approach is better described as abductive reasoning. And it is here that we may begin clarifying the difference between reasoning and logic.

In order to reach a conclusion, the three most common modes of inference are: deduction, induction and abduction. To infer a conclusion through these methods, one must engage in either deductive or inductive reasoning. In a nutshell:

* deductive reasoning leads to conclusions that are absolutely necessary; whereas

* inductive reasoning results in conclusions that are only probable or extremely likely, but not necessary or guaranteed.

So, deduction uses deductive logic/reasoning, induction uses inductive logic/reasoning, and abduction uses a hybrid of both.

Abduction is often described as “Inference to the Best Explanation” because it seeks to find a cause rather than a consequence, which is why it’s related to both types of reasoning. To clarify all this, let’s take one version of the classic example.

All humans are mortal; Socrates is a human; therefore, Socrates is mortal

Logicians use symbols such as “A°B” to simplify consequential arguments of the type “If __, then __”. These arguments can also be stated without the “if” such as the classic example above. In that example, we know that humans are mortal. So if (A) Socrates is a human, then ° (B) Socrates is mortal. Now, this is a deductive argument because all humans are in fact mortal, Socrates is in fact a human, and therefore he is necessarily mortal.

An inductive version of this argument would be if not all humans were in fact mortal or if Socrates was not really human. Rather than jumping straight into an example of induction, let us use an example that will also help us understand abductive reasoning:

All humans are mortal persons; Clark Kent is a person; therefore, Clark Kent is mortal

Notice how the first premise states that to be human means to be a person and to be mortal. The second states that Clark Kent is a person. But does that necessarily mean that he is also mortal? Here, we also find the example of abduction because anyone who encounters Clark Kent in real life would infer that this person is human, but at that point she/he would be “inferring the best explanation” (i.e. abducting) that this person is also mortal. Thus, we cannot jump to the conclusion that Clark Kent is either human or mortal just because we see that he is a person. Besides, what if Superman revealed his identity? Would Clark Kent die then?

EDITOR’S NOTE:

Now you see, not all truths are the same...

“Everything probably depends upon how you look at it .”