Certainty as a Substitute for Truth

Deductive rigidity refers to the strict application of fixed premises to reach conclusions, often stifling inquiry by treating those premises as unchallengeable, leading to inflexible and potentially flawed outcomes. In contrast, abductive reasoning offers flexibility by inferring the best explanation from observed facts, adapting to new evidence and context to align further with truth. The maxim “You can be dead sure and dead wrong” exposes a fundamental flaw in human cognition: the tendency to […] Read more »

Breaking the Matrix: How Abductive Reasoning Unites Reality and Truth

Deductive reasoning, defined as starting with general premises assumed true and deriving specific conclusions—like “all dissenters disrupt order, so Jane, a dissenter, is disruptive”—often shapes how people perceive reality, mistaking their subjective lens for universal truth. This process can create a thought matrix, a rigid mental framework where premises from culture, authority, or personal experience dictate thought’s boundaries, defended dogmatically as reality itself. For example, someone shaped by childhood trauma […] Read more »

Abductive Reasoning and the Pursuit of Truth Through Imperfection

Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference that starts with observations and seeks the simplest, most likely explanation, embracing uncertainty and iteration. It thrives on generating and refining hypotheses, often leading to surprising yet plausible conclusions, as seen in Sherlock Holmes’ investigative approach. Abductive iteration is the cyclical process within abductive reasoning where initial imperfect hypotheses are proposed, tested against evidence with deductive reasoning, and refined or discarded in […] Read more »