Will you give information about reasoning methods with examples?

The Answer

Dear Brother / Sister,

7.5.3.Reasoning Methods, Faith Based on Evidence

     Our brain features refute the theory of evolution’s thesis advocating random existence. How can conceptual thought and  symbolic thought emerge by chance in man? This cannot be explained according to the laws of physics. Therefore, it is an area where a causal relationship like DNA cannot be established now. There is a brain that uses logical reasoning. This logic-based reasoning does not exist in other living beings. There are four known methods of logical reasoning now.

     Deductive method can also be called analysis. You reach the work from the doer, the smoke from the fire. There is a fire behind the mountain, but you do not see the fire; you see the smoke and you say by reasoning, “There is smoke coming from there; there is no smoke without fire.” You see smoke even though you do not see fire. If someone says, “I haven’t seen the fire”, you say, “There is no smoke without fire.” This is evidence of fire. In that case, you cannot say “There is no fire.“

     The other one is the inductive method. The method developed by Aristotle was only the inductive method. We can give understanding creation and existence by examining the fly seen in Table 3 as an example tothe inductive method. The inductive method was understood after Aristotle.

Table 3
     Foundations Based on Evidence

   Figure. Eye of a fly.1

Logical Reasoning + Evidence in the Universe + Divine teachings = The Fact of Creation

      Examine the characteristics of an ordinary fly. It flaps its wings 500 times per second; it has 8000 lenses in its eye. These features are recorded in its DNA; it lives only a few weeks. What is its function in the universe?

      Abduction was introduced afterwards. Modal logic was introduced in the 1920s. Induction is a method of reasoningthat involves discovering the doer from the work, the fire from the smoke. The other one involves discovering the effect from the cause. One of them is the method of reaching smoke from fire and the other is reaching fire from smoke. (Table 4,5)

Table 4
Reasoning Methods

  • Numerical Reasoning. It is reasoning through numbers with the ability to analyze the relationship of sequence.
  • Logical Reasoning. It is reasoning through the ability to think and analyze based on logic.
  • Nonverbal Reasoning. It is reasoning through the ability to analyze based on seeing and figures/shapes. It expresses the relationship of size, color and shape.   
  • Verbal Reasoning. It is reasoning through the ability to analyze and interpret written information.

Table 5
Logical Reasoning”

  1. Deduction, Analysis, from the doer to the work, from effect to cause, “fire becoming evidence for smoke”.
  2. Induction, from the work to the doer,from cause to effect, “smoke becoming evidence for fire”
  3. Comparison, Abduction, Analogy, Syllogism, from minor premise to major premise,“the trueness of the news about traffic accident
  4. Modern Logic, Modal Logic, Modality. It caused computer and theoretical physics. It was defined in the 1920s.

The marriage of mathematics with logic took place. The age of Informatics began (Bertrand Russell).

Deduction, Analysis, from the doer to the work, from effect to cause, fire becoming evidence for smoke.

Comparison, Abduction, Analogy, Syllogism, from minor premise to major premise, the trueness of the news about traffic accident.

     It makes a premise by taking into account the possible or probable universe that has the value of trueness in the universe we live.

      When one sees a fire, he deduces that it has smoke but the opposite is also possible. That is, he decides that there is fire when he sees smoke. So, when he sees the smoke, he judges the existence of fire. To be able to understand the reason when one sees the results: the first is to understand the cause, and the other is to establish a causal relationship.

     You look at the whole in deduction. You examine a work and try to understand the outcomes.

     In deduction, you see a fire and you establish a connection between fire and smoke. However, in induction, you look at the result, that is the work.  You establish a connection with it and you find the doer. One of them goes from the specific to the general and the other from the general to the specific.  

     The other method is called comparison, abduction or analogy method. It is based on thinking of the minor premises and understanding the major premises. For example, someone came from the city of Şanlıurfa and said, "There was a big accident; two people died." You might or might not believe him. Ten minutes later, someone else came and said, "There was an accident; two people died." Another person came and said the same thing. You would no longer doubt that there was an accident. When a few people independent from one another said it, you would have no doubt that there was an accident.

     It becomes possible to understand the major premise by acting upon some minor premises. This is called abduction, analogy or comparison method. In this way, it becomes possible to reach the truth, that is, to reach the truth by reasoning.

     We can give the dialogue between two children in the mother’s womb expressed in Table 6 as an example of the analogy method.

Table 6
Dialogue between two babies (Analogy example)

Two babies in the mother’s womb are analyzing life after birth.
The first one:
- Arms, legs, eyes, mouths, ears are not necessary here? There must be life after this place.
The second one:
- No. Everything is here.  I don’t believe in what I don’t see.
The first:
- There’s someone who feeds us; we have umbilical cords. There must be a mother.
The second:
- I don’t see her. If she existed, I’d see her. I’m comfortable. I don’t care.
The first:
- I hear a song when it is quiet around. I feel that there’s someone who loves me.
The second:
- These are coincidence. You are dreaming.
The first:
-We’ll get out of here. I don’t see it but I feel the existence of a life. The existence of a life is more likely than its non-existence.
The second:
-You’re right. If there is nothing after this place, life will be meaningless.

     The other method is modal logic. It is also called modern logic. It was defined in 1925-26. The method of finding the truth according to the modal logic is as follows: Suppose that you live in Istanbul. There was a big earthquake in 1999. Is it likely that there will be an earthquake right now? Possible but not likely. If it were likely, you would sleep outside; you would set up a tent; close danger but possible! You would not think of setting up a tent for a very weak danger. When analyzing an issue, it is analyzed by looking at which universe it is. In existence, that is the way of acting in modal logic; can we understand existence by reasoning like this?

     I should first tell you about logic-based reasoning before I can explain to you its logic. Today, there is an analysis system developed for intelligence and reasoning tests using the reasoning methods. It is used in the form of computerized modules. There are SPM and COG tests, also called attention tests, non-verbal learning test called NVLT, long-term attention test called DAUF, and tests called WISC-R and WaisInt, etc. They are all tests that measure reasoning, intelligence, attention and decision-making processes, focusing, causality, difference, similarity, putting in order in time and abstraction.  CAS, Tova and Moxo tests are tests showing attention tests. They are the tests we use in daily practice. They are about measuring a person’s intelligence and reasoning power.

     Those tests are important because man has the ability to use it. You cannot apply an intelligence test to an animal. You cannot do a reasoning test. There is no theory of mind in animals. Only human beings have it. There is even the theory of theory. In the theory of mind, when we see someone putting his hand into his pocket, we think that he will take out his key; and when he takes his hand into his pocket when he goes to his car, you make assumptions about what he is going to do. This is the theory of the mind. For example, autistic people do not have it. An autistic person believes only what he sees. An animal does not have it either. An animal also believes what it sees.

     There is also the theory of theory, thinking what the other person is thinking about. This is called theory of theory. All of them are the features in the human brain; man uses the theory of mind because of these features, which also distinguish between the autistic and the non-autistic. Autists are individuals who have no function other than eating, drinking, and reproduction. It turns people into ill people; and people who cannot produce abstract thoughts emerge with this illness. This exists especially in man. Why does this reasoning feature exist in humans and not in other living beings? This is the feature of understanding the existence of man. This is genetically coded in humans (Table 7,8,9).

Table 7
Theory Of Mind

As reasoning, it includes
1- being able to make predictions about the mental states and thoughts of others,
2- being able to form a theory about the mind of individuals other than ourselves by establishing a relationship,
3-ability to think about thought.2

Table 8

  • Intelligence and Reasoning Tests (Vienna Test System, Computer Modul)
  • SPM, COG
  • Those tests measure Focusing, Causality, Difference-Similarity, Timing, Classifying and Abstraction.

Advocates of positivist philosophy said 200 years ago, “We do not need God.” This period is still going on.

2.Jarrold, Carruthers, Smith and Boucher, 1994

Questions on Islam

Was this answer helpful?
In order to make a comment, please login or register