Two kinds of reasoning processes are discussed here
in reference to the
Progressive Materialist paradigm. A case will be made for the proposition that there are two forms of reasoning that are most often evident in day to day affairs. One is termed here as
Foundation Reasoning, wherein facts, evidence and premises proceed conclusions. Foundation Reasoning is in essence inductive reasoning which is to reason from the particular to the general. Thus conclusions are based on facts introduced into evidence. 'All the known facts are presented to an impartial panel, wherein by deliberation, conclusions are drawn.' Or in a more ordinary vein, before taking a trip it might be prudent to get the best information possible from people who have been to the destination and from travel books, rather than relying on promotional advertisements,
where a particular conclusion benefits objectives.
The second logical method is termed
Authority Reasoning, in which conclusions proceed evidence, facts and premises. An example might be the conclusion that there is no such thing as 'Global Warming'. This determination may support the proclivities of certain types of people who profit from the causes of the phenomenon. The conclusion as a generality proceeds the evidence. Thus only evidence that supports the conclusion that there is no such thing as Global Warming may be accepted, and all
evidence to the contrary may be ignored or denied. The term Authority Reasoning is used because the pre-existent conclusion is the authority upon which reasoning is based.
LOGIC (1 of 8)