Evaluating a situation and coming to a conclusion based upon information at hand, at the time.
(which is antithetical to deductive reasoning)

Inductive reasoning, being informal, depends upon dialogue, i.e., opinions, i.e., "feelings" in order to come to a "feeling" of "oneness," i.e., a consensus while deductive reasoning, being formal, depends upon discussion, i.e., established facts and truth in order to come to an agreement. There is no certainty in inductive reasoning, only speculation, based upon the perceived evidence at hand, i.e., "sense experience," i.e., "I think" and "I feel," i.e., "It is my opinion" ("pride of life") which engenders policy or action—which is ever subject to 'change,' i.e., has the potential of being wrong even when, at the 'moment,' it seems right, based upon the participants "sensuous needs" of the 'moment' ("lust of the flesh") and "sense perception" of the situation ("lust" of the eyes"), i.e., "self interest" making them subject to the one controlling, i.e., manipulating the flow of information, whether it is "appropriate information," i.e., "positive," i.e., supporting his desire outcome, i.e., control or "inappropriate information," i.e., "negative," i.e., getting in the way of, i.e., inhibiting or blocking his desired outcome, i.e., control).

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25

Inductive reasoning is subject to "seems to," i.e., an opinion.

Just because something seems to be right (supposition,) does not mean that it is right.  Just because something seems to be in agreement does not make it right. "Seems to" is the language of private interpretation, the result of perception, it is the language of theory. In the language of perceptions—"I think"—we quickly focus on those things which are similar to our desired outcomes, in other words our "feelings" are involved in determining the outcome, and we tend to loose the ability to cognitively or factually recognize those things which are in conflict with our "self interest." It is here that inductive reasoning ("sense experience," i.e., life experience) allows the person to select the "appropriate information" which guarantees his desired outcome (setting aside or not including "inappropriate information" which prevents, i.e., blocks or inhibits him from having his desired outcome), making the outcome subject to his carnal desires of the 'moment.'

By making law subject to inductive reasoning,' i.e., subject to the person's "sensuous needs" of the 'moment' and "sense perception" of the situation, i.e., i.e., subject to his "self interest" laws become subject to his carnal nature, i.e., his carnal desires of the 'moment,' making him subject to the world only, and anyone manipulating it—void of the laws (and restraints) of authority. This is what Immanuel Kant meant by "lawfulness without law," i.e., the laws of the flesh without the law of God getting in the way. This is the basis of 'liberalism,' i.e., socialism, where "human nature," i.e., the child's carnal nature supersedes the Word of God, i.e., the will of the Father.

In a plain crash, for example, you gather all the evidence you can in order to come to a conclusion as to what actually happened—then and only then do you determine if human error was the cause. Any absence (or exclusion) of information (witnesses or pieces of the wreck) makes the outcome an opinion or theory. Inductive reasoning is the process of coming to a conclusion (decision) by reasoning from the feelings and thoughts of the investigator prior to all the evidence being gathered, making the selection of information subject to his opinion, i.e., desires, i.e., "self interest" where particular information (evidence) can be gathered or excluded and arranged (manipulated) to produce a generalized (uncertain or probable) conclusion, i.e., desired outcome. While inductive reasoning, i.e., "higher order thinking skillsmay be recognized as a scientific method when used to find out about rocks, plants, and animals, in order to taxonomize (categorize) and thereby better understand and utilize them, to use this method to "taxonomize" mankind (so he can be better understood and utilized in a global economy) is evil, i.e., makes man subject to the world only.  It is the means to buying and selling souls, where a person's "feelings" in response to the situation of the 'moment' directs their thoughts and actions, making him subject to whoever is manipulating the situation.

To define the essence of mankind through this method, as done by Georg W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and socio-psychologists today, is wicked, 'justifying' man's deceitful and wicked heart as being "good" or having the potential of becoming "good" when given the right upbringing, education, surroundings, etc., i.e., information. By basing right and wrong upon a persons "feelings," i.e., "felt needs" of the 'moment,' i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, including the affirmation of others, information becomes relevant or irrelevant according to his desired outcome, making the outcome subject to his carnal desires of the 'moment,' the world stimulating them, and the one manipulating it ("helping" him select the "appropriate," i.e., "self" 'justifying' information). "The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating whoever prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it desires]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 The heart can not see its hate as being evil with its desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world is stimulating standing in the way, 'justifying' it, i.e., the hate, making it good, i.e., 'justified' instead.

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

Inductive reasoning is grounded in the universe and can only recognize cosmic-sensuous manifestations (that which is of the world only, i.e., material) as an outcome—it can not recognize that which is observable and repeatable (which would make it a law, which would no longer need inductive reasoning in order to be understand).  When used correctly, inductive reasoning brings the scientist either to a termination—where the evidence at hand results in a now known law, previously established by God but now, thanks to the use of inductive reasoning, known to man, or it continues to be a never-ending theory. To materialize mankind is to destroy the device God placed in man so he could know God as his creator—faith, which is depended upon deductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is used in the classroom to arrive at a socialist outcome when the teacher "encourages" the students to come to a conclusion based upon reasoning from their life experience, i.e., their sensuous needs and sense perception, i.e., their "feelings"—desire ("self" interests)—of the 'moment' and their dissatisfaction with restraint (authority), making the outcome subject to the teachers manipulation of the situation, either emphasizing or dismissing (looking past "inappropriate") information provided by the students, i.e., established commands, rules, facts, and truth which inhibits or blocks the teacher,  i.e., facilitator of 'change' from arriving at his or her desires outcome (while thanking the students for their input), suggesting information which leads to his or her desired outcome instead, with the validity (practicality) of the information being based upon the collective understanding of (acceptance by) the students (when done in a group setting), i.e., the press of "group approval," affirmation moving the students away from commands, rules, facts, and truth which get in the way of their carnal desires, moving them in the direction of accepting opinions, i.e., their "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment' as the bases to reasoning from instead.

Role playing is added to reinforce the social-ist skills of "relationship building" and "task accomplishing" roles, negating "individualist" roles which are indicative of the father's/Father's authority (individualism, under God). As Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [where the child is personally held accountable for his actions by his earthly father as a man is personally held accountable for this thoughts and actions by the Heavenly Father), which is based upon deductive reasoning] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him.  Society is the necessary framework through which freedom [freedom from the father's authority] and individuality [finding common identity, i.e., affirmation with those of like feelings, thought, and action, which is based upon inductive reasoning] are made realities."  (Karl Marx in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx)

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2016 - 2019