Tag Archives: the truth about reasoning



Reason: v. to try to achieve an accurate (righta conclusion(s) and/or judgment(s)) and/ or (inference(s) from a fact(s)) and/or (hypothesis(s)) and/or opinion(s)) and/or belief(s) and/or sensing with the use of the probabilities between cause(s) and effect(s) correspondences and/or set(s) and subset(s) correspondences

Most unscientific reasoning tries to connect a cause and effect or events in a probabilistic way using times as reference points.

The most successful reasoning exists in science using the scientific method of reasoning with the aid of mathematics and the concepts of sets, subsets, and variables. The results of this reasoning is frequently certainty and a 100% probability or a statistical numerical probability.

In human behavior and analysis of events there is a certain probability that exists between a cause and an effect or between relatable or corresponding events.

Deductive reasoning starts with a cause or causes and tries to deduce what the possible effects might be based on historical precedent or direct observation. Sometimes the effect or effects become a cause or causes in a chain or series of cause effect relationships or correspondences.

Inductive reasoning starts with an effect or effects and tries to determine what the cause or causes might have been or are based on historical precedent or observation.

Factual events which can be verified or known to exist are the most useful in making cause effect relationships or correspondences but some reasoning about behavior is frequently based upon historical precedents of the parties involved.

Some probabilistic conclusions are made about events which exist without seeming causes but appear to be largely random in nature.

If a human has an impeccable reputation for honesty then the probability that he is lying is minimal.  Similarly there is a high probability that one with a bad reputation is probably lying about something.

If someone has been late for work about once a month for the past six months then the probability that he will be late about once a month for the following six months is relatively high based on historical precedent.

If you define sympathy as a subset of empathy then you can conclude that there are more empathetic behaviors than sympathetic ones although the actual number may not be known. This kind of reasoning involves synthesis or analysis of a set and subsets and then making conclusions about the relationships between the set and subsets.


Reasoning is communications about the probabilities between a cause(s) and an effect(s) or between events and communications about the relationships or correspondences between a set and its subsets or the relationships or correspondences between the subsets themselves.

Probability communications are made about the past, present, and future. Historical precedent and/or direct observations of facts are frequently the most useful in making predictions about the future.

If you reason without an understanding of probabilities, sets and subsets, and historical facts or accurate observation of facts then your reasoning ability is very bad and frequently biased by intuitive emotional reactions which are frequently inaccurate.

If you can predict emotional states of a human by observation and then control or change the emotions and behavior in a predictable way then you are using reasoning ability.

It is no wonder that politics uses very little reasoning or logic but mostly appeals to strong emotional beliefs or opinions. Humans use very little reasoning when interacting with new acquaintances but frequently make biased stereotypical conclusions about other humans based on scant information or facts which results in much misunderstanding and conflict

If you liked this evergreen truth blog then read more of them, approximately 600 so far, and one or more of my evergreen truth books, especially COMMON SENSE, rays of truth in a human world filled with myths and deceptions.