With new information coming out about the Mueller Report, and a continuing lack of CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS, coupled with a MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE RULES THAT GOVERN THE DISCIPLINES OF DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE LOGIC still prevalent, it is time to revisit this Topic.
However, this time we are going to focus on specific TERMINOLOGY, AND CONCENTRATE ON ANY CONCLUSIONS MADE.
In simple terms, A CONCLUSION IS A JUDGEMENT MADE BY AN INDIVIDUAL(S) TO EXPLAIN A SPECIFIC OUTCOME, WHICH IS DONE BY AN ANALYSIS OF A SPECIFIC SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
In LOGIC, A CONCLUSION IS JUDGED BY THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENT, (STRUCTURE), AND THE STRENGTH OF THE SUPPORTING PREMISES.
Here is a basic example.
PREMISE- JOHN DOES FINGERPRINTS WERE NOT FOUND ON THE MURDER WEAPON.
PREMISE- THE MURDER WEAPON CAUSED THE FATAL INJURY.
CONCLUSION- JOHN DOE COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THE FATAL INJURY.
This is an Invalid Argument. (Not Structured correctly.) While the premises might be true, it does not automatically follow that John Doe could not have caused the Fatal Injury. (i.e.Wearing Gloves.)
Now, if I change the CONCLUSION to: THE FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE DOES NOT PROVE THAT JOHN DOE IS INNOCENT OF THE CRIME. I now have a Valid Argument, for if the PREMISES are True, the CONCLUSION DOES FOLLOW and is LOGICALLY COMPATIBLE.
The Point is this- We must be very careful to READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING ASSERTED AS TRUE, BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE BEING PROVIDED. Too many times we find Individuals and Groups carefully selecting specific pieces of evidence, (Creating Premises), that support a specific Conclusion that they proclaim "PROVES THAT THE EVIDENCE VINDICATES US COMPLETELY," when in fact it does not.
to be continued...
