Induction, Deduction, Hugh Hefner and the Crack-Whore

Induction and Deduction

Within the philosophy of logic there are different modes of reasoning, and it is our job as logicians, i.e., people who think logically, to determine the best mode of reasoning and employ it accurately. The various modes of reasoning include but are not limited to inductive reasoning, deductive reasong, and abductive reasoning.

What concerns us here is the differences between inductive vs. deductive reasoning. My premise is that a large segment of the population, to put it bluntly, lacks critical thinking skills. When faced with a strong inductive argument which challenges basic ideas, these people will turn to deduction and simply claim, "that doesn't make sense". This is due to a psychological concept called cognitive dissonance, which we will return to shortly.

Inductive reasoning simply means starting from the facts and working upwards, forming more general theories as we move up the pyramid. Induction moves from observations, to patterns, to a tentative hypothesis, to a theory. It is a bottum up approach.

Deductive reasoning is the opposite; it works from the top down. Deduction begins with a theory, then forumlates a hypothesis, then moves to observation. Arguments can be expressed both inductively and deductively. When the proverbial apple hit Newton on the head, he used induction to come to the theory of gravity. Everything that comes up must come down, and this is a general principle or law that we can call gravity. Someone like Einstein on the other hand would be able to use his tremendous understanding to arrive at the theory of gravity via an alternative method, the general theory of relativity. Perhaps gravity is a bad example, but the differences between induction and deduction should be clear by now.

Hugh Hefner and the Crack-Whore

Lets suppose for a minute that Hugh Hefner is accused of raping a 57 year old, 220 lb. crack-whore. The police, initially highly suspect of these claims, investigate anyways. Witnesses report seeing a man matching Hefner's description getting out of a limo and entering this woman's home. DNA analysis determines that the DNA does indeed match Hefner. Police then search Hefner's home and they find writings indicating Hefner fantisized about these types of women. Other women then come forward and and also make allegations against Hefner. It turns out that at every single aspect investigators look into, things are not what they seem with Hefner.

At this point a very strong case, both scientific and circumstancial has now been made against Hefner. Prosecutors charge Hefner with rape and the case then goes to trial. At trial the prosecution presents all of the evidence. The defense doesn't even cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. When it is their turn to present their case, they simply rest. During closing arguments the defense simply talks about the absurdity of all this, considering the fact the Hefner lives with dozens of beautiful women, playmates in fact, who are more than willing to sleep with him. They make no reference whatsoever to the prosecutions case, other than to simply point out the illogicality of it. Naturally the jury finds Hefner innocent. Orange juice anyone?

In this hypothetical situation we have a very strong inductive case (a bottum up approach dealing with facts first and theories second) against Hefner "debunked" by a deductive argument: that Hefner simply wouldn't do such a thing (a theory that ignores the evidence).