ethics studies: 11-24-2021 post

https://www.film-shorts.tv/wpress.cfonseca160/blog/2021/11/24-assume-vs-deduce/ ‎

This post is a quick lesson for my subscribers; especially those who have kids (who may not have, yet, been taught the difference between two meanings):
1) Assumptions
2) Deductive Reasoning

As with most life aspects in an increasingly polarized society, persons who are not yet mature in: life experience, character, and/or emotional wisdom, might through no fault exhibit trouble assessing nuances. This is why society is wise not to put a child justice behind the judicial bench. Nor, an adult judge who has particular obvious and slanted objectives. Such person fails to see the “shades of gray”, preferring “extremes” because they are perceivable more easily than nuance. One consequence of inability to see nuance, is growing general lack of compassion (or understanding) for both victim and perpetrator of situations or crimes in worst case.

An assumption, is a temporary conclusion that an average person is often forced to (willing or unwilling so) think/make, when material evidence is missing in a particular. Men or women who gossip, and who claim information that is relevant to someone other than themself as being theirs (not the intended party), will often assume that something pertains to them – when in fact it does not at all. (This is one example of such a lie – or better said, a mental delusion). It is one contributing factor to increases in widespread assumption. It is damaging. Neglecting material evidence can also be used in order to persecute a victim, through means of omission of truth that would otherwise and quickly exonerate in an instance of presumed guilt or charge.

In an age of mass surveillance, it is increasingly common for people to assume that information items pertain to them – even though they do not. “Well, if he or she can have that, why can I not?” The assumption, of this kind, omits an understanding of the years of specified meriting that another went through (while the other did not). And, out of frustration, learning that it does not pertain to the jealous party (who often wishes so deeply that it does), he or she will consequently: gossip, leak, misrepresent, and/or disclose information that is in likelihood: 1) false, 2) premature to reveal, and/or 3) irrelevant to his own life. Some information, is not exclusive to one person nor a small group. And, in such case, leaking (or spreading information) is more of a duty and service to community. This is the function of an honest press for example (assuming that even an honest press does not have political or gender-advancing objectives of its own designs).

So, an assumption can be perilous and damaging to one’s perceptions – and to society. Sometimes, however, a person must assume something to be as it is believed. For example, if one must make a choice when presented with a dilemma this is true. Even “fake news” is sometimes believable, in the absence of truth. Or, if one must assume something as being true, due to persistent lack of actionable information or sustained deprivations of any kind this is true. Or, if one’s life depends on assuming some information to be true or reliable this is true. If someone or a particular ethnic group is constantly hostile toward you, you best assume that at some point they might intend to kill you. That would not be an over-reaction. Many times, a guess with 50/50 chance, can save one from death. And, there’s no greater uncertainty in probability between two opposing options, than 50%. This is why people often are forced to make assumptions about reality in a time of crisis or personal, existential, defense. That phenomena is often referred to as “fight or flight” in which case a person is imperfect in decision.

How about, deductive reasoning? Deductive reasoning is an essential life skill. Deductive reasoning can save your life too; and, it can also help you to save a lot time. By being able to deduce well, you can solve a problem. Even, many problems. It also enables you to protect yourself from harm. But, even deductive-reasoning can be faulty if the situation is obscured beyond clear evidence. Or, in attempting to avert conspiracy. Deductive reasoning is not perfect. But, it most often helps.

For example, ability to endeavor and rule out evidence that points to something as being true, can be obliterated if “evidence” of something (otherwise eliciting conclusion) depicts at least two seemingly contradictory material facts. Let’s say, for argument sake, that two people have been shot to death. At the crime scene, only one bullet-shell is found. This would suggest that only one person was shot. But, an investigator cannot yet rule out that one of the shells has gone missing. What if, however, there is other evidence to lead an experienced investigator to rule out that two shots were fired? This would make the scene more complicated to figure out.

That evidence, would indicate that even skillful deductive reasoning often leaves alternate explanation, yet unknown, possible. This is often a reason why mysteries are sometimes unsolved for many years. And, there are multitudes of contributing factors in community, with a lot of blame to go around, which often culminate to a tragic incident. Yet, deductive reasoning must be deployed and relied upon the best that it can be. Adam’s fall in The Garden cannot exonerate a guilty party’s present-day crime in a human court.

People are often forced to believe that if an established authority declares something to be true, then it must be true. But, is it always the case? I remind readers that established authorities throughout history, have claimed particular geniuses to be presenting fraudulent information. I submit to you: particular astronomers who were ridiculed for their scientific findings. They turned out, later, to be correct about their facts (however). They proved the established and highly respected authorities to be wrong about a natural fact – having assumed an error.

So, what is the difference between an assumption and deductive reasoning? Well, they are essentially the same thing, except that deductive reasoning is more reliable. Without an assumption (theory), deductive reasoning cannot stand on its own though either. By ruling out possibilities, the skill enables: solution, solving, and should give comprehensive understanding with a resolution. Central to deductive reasoning, is fair-use of understood motive. Fortunately, correctly identifying possible motive(s)… then ruling some of them out, is a very reliable action with indicators that lead to eventually solving problems as best as possible. And, understanding human motives requires good instinct and intuition (on part of the experts) that can come from general experience and expertise.

An assumption is most often laced with bias, prejudice, falsehood, discrimination, guessing, false blame. Each of us relies on life experience to shape understanding or notion. An assumption is something that is a basis and a starting point. Shaped by societal standards, it can be reliable; but, it must undergo a deductive reasoning process (if allowed to). When people demand quick answers (letting emotions cloud their reasoning – or resulting in the demanding of certain outcomes for political satisfaction irrespective of facts), deductive reasoning is often not allowed to be used and fleshed out. And, this can result in misunderstanding, mob rule, anarchy, etc.

Deductive process requires bias, initially. It requires identification of relevant facts; and process from that starting point. Some people refer to such action as “reverse engineering”. Evidence cannot be ignored if the pursuit is: truth, justice, and fairness. Investigators are at their best when they can be least emotionally involved (least emotionally invested) in a truth-seeking endeavor. The more that people ignore evidence, or turn a blind eye to the possible or first likely truths, the more that assumptions take center stage (unreliably). This is what causes rage and vicious cycles – as people deem institutions unfair and irrelevant even though they might not be so to begin with. It is true that denial of truths feed into widely accepted assumptions that systems are unfair, even when and if they are not unfair. Faith in expertise is required, for expertise to perform its function and service (beyond simply existing in thought processes).

Added to that, if statistics bear out the truth that particular groups are favoring acceptance of false narrative in order to satisfy racial and political agenda, then those persons become increasingly hostile against a system that would otherwise be seeking to find the truth and the evidence.