Prejuctiche Reasoning

[feather240]

After bouncing some ideas around the forums for a while I began to wonder to myself what the difference is between deductive reasoning and prejudice, and I never got a straight answer, so here I am before you today to find out.

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!

Now here's an example of inductive reasoning:
Look at him. They are all like that.

My problem is that deductive reasoning is based off of looking at how a group acts to judge how part of it acts, but that's very similar to prejudice where you prejudge something by how the group usually is. What I want to know is where the boundary is between them. At what point do you cross from being logical to generalizing. Here are two examples.

People who usually wear dark clothes, have dragged you to an alley, hold a knife up to your throat, and are about to say something are planning on demanding your wallet.
An person wearing dark clothes has dragged you to an alley, holds a knife up to your throat, and is about to say something. This is deductive reasoning.

On the plant 'Wearth' over 50% of 'Wasians' are criminals, you see one approaching you. You prejudge him and call the cops.

So escapists, at what point do you cross from deduction to prejudice?

 

[Kpt._Rob]

This, like many of the things in life, is something that simply can't be quantified, there are no scientific rules that can be laid down for evaluation. All I can say is try to keep and open heart and an open mind, and use your best judgement.

 

[feather240]

This, like many of the things in life, is something that simply can't be quantified, there are no scientific rules that can be laid down for evaluation. All I can say is try to keep and open heart and an open mind, and use your best judgement.

Well if it is qualitative then why can't we just use a qualitative form of measurement? We just need to find an example that sits on both sides of it, right?

 

[DiMono]

Deductive reasoning is grounded in facts: A and B therefore C. Prejudice is grounded in opinion: I think A and B therefore C. If you're not basing your decision on proven fact, it's prejudice.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

This, like many of the things in life, is something that simply can't be quantified, there are no scientific rules that can be laid down for evaluation. All I can say is try to keep and open heart and an open mind, and use your best judgement.

Well if it is qualitative then why can't we just use a qualitative form of measurement? We just need to find an example that sits on both sides of it, right?

All I'm saying is that this question is too complex for a simple answer, like the one you seem to be looking for, to be assigned to it. Life has too many variables. All you can do is trust your brain, which is an incredibly complex piece of machinery, to evaluate things for you on a pre-conscious level.

 

[feather240]

Uh, you're actually complaining about inductive logic. Deductive logic would go more like:

1. All dogs are canines
2. Fluffy is a dog

3. Therefore Fluffy is a canine.

It's quite a bit more solid than "Oh chances are he's a criminal"

1.People who hold knives to your throat likely want your money.
2.Clyde is holding a knife to your throat
3.Therefore Clyde likely wants your money.

I don't understand, what did I do wrong?

Deductive reasoning is grounded in facts: A and B therefore C. Prejudice is grounded in opinion: I think A and B therefore C. If you're not basing your decision on proven fact, it's prejudice.

But facts and opinions don't always have a clear difference. If you wanted to you could argue that reality itself is subjective and that opinions that you 'know' are facts.

 

[Something Amyss]

Honestly, if someone in dark clothes drags me into an alley and holds me at knife point, I don't care if they plan to offer me cake and ice cream.

 

[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.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Somehow, I don't think that logical, well reasoned arguments are the best course of action for this thread. I'm definitely getting the troll baiting vibe...

 

[NeutralDrow]

Somehow, I don't think that logical, well reasoned arguments are the best course of action for this thread. I'm definitely getting the troll baiting vibe...

Really? I'm not getting that vibe. It feels more like someone who's mixing up deductive and inductive reasoning, and therefore mistakenly thinking stereotyping results from the former.

 

[DiMono]

Deductive reasoning is grounded in facts: A and B therefore C. Prejudice is grounded in opinion: I think A and B therefore C. If you're not basing your decision on proven fact, it's prejudice.

But facts and opinions don't always have a clear difference. If you wanted to you could argue that reality itself is subjective and that opinions that you 'know' are facts.

Your reasoning is fallacious. Facts can be proven: they are objective. Opinions are subjective, and by definition cannot be proven. The line is crystal clear. If you can't prove it, it's not a fact, and is an opinion, or at best a theory.

 

[feather240]

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.

Somehow, I don't think that logical, well reasoned arguments are the best course of action for this thread. I'm definitely getting the troll baiting vibe...

So you're not going to join in because you think I'm a troll? Doesn't that mean you're feeding me?

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Somehow, I don't think that logical, well reasoned arguments are the best course of action for this thread. I'm definitely getting the troll baiting vibe...

Really? I'm not getting that vibe. It feels more like someone who's mixing up deductive and inductive reasoning, and therefore mistakenly thinking stereotyping results from the former.

Possible, sometimes my troll-sense goes on the fritz...

 

[Good morning blues]

That is not what inductive and deductive reasoning are. Inductive reasoning proposes a general law based upon observed examples; Newton saw the apple fall from the tree, therefore gravity exists. Deductive reasoning begins with a set of premises and shows that a concept naturally follows from those premises: gravity exists, therefore this apple will fall to the ground when I let go of it.

 

[Unesh52]

First, I want to point out that "inductive" and "deductive" have a few subtly different technical definitions edit: depending on the field you use the words in, and they're all difficult to understand. In my philosophy class, deductive arguments have conclusions such that if all the premises are true, then it has to be true. The premises for inductive arguments lend support to the truth of the conclusion, i.e., conclusions arrived at through inductive arguments can only ever be likely to be true, and it can vary by how likely it is. In that sense, "inductive" is probably the word you're looking for.

Anyhoosle... I think it wouldn't be too far off to say that prejudice is just another name for a non-cogent inductive argument. Either the form is too weak or a significant premise is false. Like being afraid of black people based on the false premise that almost all black people are criminals. Or saying that all black people are good at basketball because most people who are good at basketball are black (an illogical form). In that respect, the line is still blurry; the line at which we stop accepting an inductive argument is blurry. Sorry.

 

[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.

 

[feather240]

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?

First, I want to point out that "inductive" and "deductive" have a few subtly different technical definitions edit: depending on the field you use the words in, and they're all difficult to understand. In my philosophy class, deductive arguments have conclusions such that if all the premises are true, then it has to be true. The premises for inductive arguments lend support to the truth of the conclusion, i.e., conclusions arrived at through inductive arguments can only ever be likely to be true, and it can vary by how likely it is. In that sense, "inductive" is probably the word you're looking for.

Anyhoosle... I think it wouldn't be too far off to say that prejudice is just another name for a non-cogent inductive argument. Either the form is too weak or a significant premise is false. Like being afraid of black people based on the false premise that almost all black people are criminals. Or saying that all black people are good at basketball because most people who are good at basketball are black (an illogical form). In that respect, the line is still blurry; the line at which we stop accepting an inductive argument is blurry. Sorry.

I'm confused, this is where I checked to make sure I knew what I meant

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/deduction.htm

can you see what I might have misinterpreted?

 

[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.

 

[Unesh52]

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.

 

[feather240]

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.)