Evaluating a situation and coming to a conclusion based upon established commands, rules, facts, or truth.
(which is antithetical to inductive reasoning)
Deductive reasoning, being formal, depends upon discussion, i.e., established facts and truth in order to come to an agreement while 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.
Deductive reasoning is the process of
1. taking a law or premise as is, as a priori (not depended upon prior experience or experimentation "not by human interpretation"),
2. accepting it as certain (unquestionable) and applicable in all cases (universal,) known as a categorical imperative, and
3. applying it to a specific case using valid syllogisms.
Examples of valid syllogism or sound logic are: if A=B and C=B then A=C; if A=B and C≠B then C≠A.
The law or premise, accepted as established truth, is used to evaluate the truth or rightness of any idea or situation. Those things which are in agreement to the premise are accepted as true but those things which are not in agreement are rejected as not true. An "I know" can be voiced in confidence, "I know that I am right and I know that you are wrong because my conclusion lines up with the premise, and yours does not." The premise "two plus two equals four and can not equal any other number" is universal and unquestionable. It is a categorical imperative. Whether someone is working on a toy, a bridge, or a plane, it works. If someone builds a bridge with two plus two equaling five, you don't cross the bridge. If you do you do it at your own peril.
To go against the a priori produces a guilty conscience when the person does so based upon his own carnal desires of the 'moment'—since the conscience is based upon a "right-wrong" way of thinking while the persons carnal desires are based upon his "feelings," i.e., desires or "self interest" of the 'moment,' which are based upon the current situation, which is ever subject to 'change.' When an "a priori" is wrong (according to laws of nature or the laws of God, i.e., which are based upon "right-wrong," in other words when an a priori is based upon a persons opinion or theory, i.e., subject to inductive reasoning, which prevents him from saying "I know") then anyone can disagree with the "a priori" with a clear conscience—at his own peril if whoever is pushing his opinion or theory ("I think") as a fact or truth, i.e., as an "a priori" has a gun or a sword, or signs your check, i.e., can hire or fire you.
Either it agrees or it disagrees.
Contrasting, identifying that which does not agree, is as important in deductive reasoning as is comparing, identifying that which does agree (either/or). Either it agrees or it disagrees. "This idea is in agreement with the premise, and this other idea is not." In deductive reasoning, the moment a statement (hypothesis) conflicts with the premise, a cognitive contrast or gap is recognized, and it is rejected. Contrast is important to determining the rightness of any statement.
Deductive reasoning can not be 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 with the premise, or is similar to the premise, does not mean it is in agreement with the premise. "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 the a priori. It is here that inductive reasoning ("sense experience," i.e., life experience) takes the place of deductive reasoning, allowing 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.
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2016 - 2019