Prejuctiche Reasoning

[NeutralDrow]

In deductive reasoning you look at a large group to come to the conclusion of what something belonging to it is like. Here's an example:
They are all like that -- just look at him!

That's not deductive reasoning. If it's reasoning at all, it's inductive, just like your second example. Making an educated (or uneducated) guess as to the whole based on the parts you can see.

Deductive reasoning would be if you're dealing with something already inherent. Using those variables, a deduction would be:

They're all idiots. Look at him, he's one of them, therefore, he's an idiot.

This also demonstrates the possibility of incorrect parameters.

They're all criminals.(People holding knives to your throat.) Look at him, he's one of them,(He's holding a knife to your throat.) therefore, he's a criminal.

Maybe I lack the mental capacity, but I still don't get it.

No, actually you phrased it right that time. In your OP, it seemed like you were doing the opposite (have to say, your two examples looked exactly alike).

So I guess to answer your question...deductive reasoning becomes prejudice when it resorts to stereotype, regardless of authenticity.

In other words, just because something is reasoned "deductively" doesn't mean it's right. If you reason that because they're all criminals, he must be a criminal, too, it's illogical if you're actually wrong in stating they're all criminals.

Wait, so it's not prejudice if you're right?

More or less. If your judgment is actually correct, pre-judging them doesn't matter.

Thing is, though, prejudice is basically never deductive reasoning, no matter how it's phrased. It's based off of stereotypes that's have their root solely in inductive processes, because genuinely knowing the whole of a group of humans is too complex for all but the smallest groups. Again, even in your own example, if only 50% of Wasians are criminals, you can only induce that a given Wasian you see is a criminal. Deductive reasoning deals in absolutes.

First, I believe I said it was more then half.

That doesn't matter in the least. It's not an absolute, so it's inductive reasoning, not deductive.

And second, can't you have absolute uncertaintys?

It's absolutely true that I'm using a computer to type this.
It's absolutely likely that I'm using a computer to type this.

You see where my problem is? I can know absolutely that something has a possibility of being true.

It's a semantic problem, sounds like.

You absolutely know that something is possibly true. That's an inductive premise ("Some X is Y"). "It" is true at least once, so it might be true again. Now there might be a possibility that "it" is always true, but the point of induction is that you can't know that for certain.

It's not deduction unless your premises are, by definition, completely true. Saying that you know something is possibly true is only expressing certainty in your knowledge of that possibility. You cannot logically deduce anything about the something just based on that, only induce.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

In deductive reasoning you look at a large group to come to the conclusion of what something belonging to it is like. Here's an example:
They are all like that -- just look at him!

That's not deductive reasoning. If it's reasoning at all, it's inductive, just like your second example. Making an educated (or uneducated) guess as to the whole based on the parts you can see.

Deductive reasoning would be if you're dealing with something already inherent. Using those variables, a deduction would be:

They're all idiots. Look at him, he's one of them, therefore, he's an idiot.

This also demonstrates the possibility of incorrect parameters.

They're all criminals.(People holding knives to your throat.) Look at him, he's one of them,(He's holding a knife to your throat.) therefore, he's a criminal.

Maybe I lack the mental capacity, but I still don't get it.

No, actually you phrased it right that time. In your OP, it seemed like you were doing the opposite (have to say, your two examples looked exactly alike).

So I guess to answer your question...deductive reasoning becomes prejudice when it resorts to stereotype, regardless of authenticity.

In other words, just because something is reasoned "deductively" doesn't mean it's right. If you reason that because they're all criminals, he must be a criminal, too, it's illogical if you're actually wrong in stating they're all criminals.

Wait, so it's not prejudice if you're right?

More or less. If your judgment is actually correct, pre-judging them doesn't matter.

Thing is, though, prejudice is basically never deductive reasoning, no matter how it's phrased. It's based off of stereotypes that's have their root solely in inductive processes, because genuinely knowing the whole of a group of humans is too complex for all but the smallest groups. Again, even in your own example, if only 50% of Wasians are criminals, you can only induce that a given Wasian you see is a criminal. Deductive reasoning deals in absolutes.

First, I believe I said it was more then half.

And second, can't you have absolute uncertaintys?

It's absolutely true that I'm using a computer to type this.
It's absolutely likely that I'm using a computer to type this.

You see where my problem is? I can know absolutely that something has a possibility of being true.

I'm confused...

You know what? I think I may have misspoke anyway (and my exam is next week! I should know better). The two kinds of deductive and inductive reasoning I'm familiar with come from my English course and my Philosophy course. The thing you sourced seemed to have elements of both. I say we just give up the terminology for now; it's causing more problems than anything else.

I assert that prejudices are unfounded generalizations. Take the assertion "Most Asians are bad drivers." This could be a prejudice or a well founded generalization. If you've analyzed things like the meta-data from accident reports and compared them to the population of Asians in the area, or some other statistical analysis, then that conclusion is sensible. If you say "I've been in 2 accidents involving Asians, my Asian friend is a bad driver, and I see Asians portrayed as bad drivers on TV," then that conclusion is a simple prejudice. Note that the scope and strength of the conclusion is related to how likely it is that a given assertion is a prejudice. The conclusion "All Asians are bad drivers" is much harder to rationally support, and therefore would most likely be prejudiced, while "Some Asians are bad drivers" (though kind of a pointless statement) would be easy to support, and it'd be almost impossible for that to qualify as prejudice. Regardless, both instances are always possible; the important thing isn't the nature of the conclusion, it's the nature of the premises.

Feel like you're getting anywhere with this thread? I can't tell.

I feel like I'm getting somewhere.

What I meant from deductive reasoning was that if you know that a majority does something not because you've looked at the minority, but because you've been told that the majority does, and you come to the conclusion that a minority of the majority is like the majority isn't that deductive reasoning? Is that right? I need to know whether or not I'm misscommunicating it or just don't understand it.

So you believe that a prejudice is based on how you come to a conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

Does that mean that if a car insurance company one day looked at statistics, realized that the local population of Indians in Alaska were awful drivers they could raise the insurance rate for them and it wouldn't be prejudice, and a car insurance company that hears a lot of local news about car crashes with blacks and a fair share of them have been in car accidents the majority of which were caused by black drivers then having them increase car insurance for blacks would be prejudice? (Try not to worry about being Politically Correct, it isn't a trap or anything.)

This is where you're wrong, that isn't deductive reasoning. That's prejudice, because you ASSUME that the majority will behave like the minority you have experienced. You ASSUME that since most Wasians (btw, what's a Wasian??) holding a knife to you throat are criminals, then the Wasian currently holding a knife to your throat is a criminal, but maybe he just wants a cuddle? Deduction is grounded in facts, and drawing a factual axiom from those facts. This obviously depends on the truths you are using to create the deduction, but thats a different story. For arguments sake let's assume that what comes next is all true.

1. Sparky is a cat.
2. All cats are blue.

These statements are both fact, and using those I can DEDUCE that:

3. Sparky is Blue. (Because he's a cat, and all cats are blue, he must be blue)

And yes, the car insurance examples are examples of prejudice, becuase they ASSUME that the majority will be have like the minority they have experienced. There is no extrapilation of facts involved.