Deductive Indoctrination

One of the more obvious flaws with higher education is its general tendency to indoctrinate students. (At least, this is obvious to anyone who stands outside of the politically-correct inner circle of watered down academe.) We can trace the source of the fall of higher education to well-intentioned professors who wished to "make a difference" or "change the world" by inflicting on unsuspecting students a mishmash of moral relativism, socialism, groupspeak, psychobabble, feel-good politics, multiculturalism, hedonism, and a disdain for rational thought. (On rationalism, see the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) (And yes, some of these "well-intentioned" professors know exactly the effect they have on young, impressionable minds.)

In short, higher education promotes, then inculcates, arguments based on flawed premises.

One case in point is the academic trend to promote only deductive reasoning, excluding inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a process of figuring out what is true, based on assumptions that are presumed to be true. This is the system that Aristotle brought to the world, using a formal argument called the syllogism:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.

Deductive reasoning is a useful system of logic that has allowed us to make much sense about the physical world around us. Schools now tend to teach only deductive reasoning, since the system works quite well when we are dealing with the sciences. Yet, deductive reasoning has one, major flaw when applied across the board; it is the only system of logic taught to today's students. The conclusions students draw are only as good as the premises on which they are based.

Professors and teachers dogmatically cling to false conclusions, thinking smugly to themselves that they can do so because they have "proof" of their position. But their position would come tumbling down once the premises are shown to be false. These professors then turn around to ridicule anyone who questions their premises.

This produces a circular argument which is guarded closely to the hearts of leftists who ridicule and deride any who dare question their empirical thought. Here's an example. We've heard President Obama's dogmatic position on raising taxes on the rich as a means of reducing the national debt. To Obama, the conclusion is obvious, since his premises rely on the unquestioning assumption that rich people are evil. (Or, at the very least, they are greedy.) Where's the proof for the premise? Well, that lies in the premise that the distribution of wealth is the best means of taking care of the poor - another faulty premise based on bankrupt socialist thought. Those who question the conclusion or the premises are labeled as haters, bigots, or (shudder) rich people.

The biggest flaw with the modern application of deductive reasoning, is the manipulation of data to fit the conclusion. Leftists can argue almost any position as true because they can tweak the premises to fit their conclusions. For example, look at global climate change (formerly "global warming," formerly "global cooling"). The name change means nothing to leftists, yet proves to everyone else that the premises have been altered to fit the "inexorable" conclusion that we must halt global climate change by any political or economic means possible.

Other examples: The people of the US don't like government deficit spending? Just repackage it into a bill with a different name. (After all the leftist conclusion about deficit spending must be correct! Everyone knows the data support the conclusion.) Gays want public acceptance? Force the issue by comparing sexual preference with race. (And if you don't see the connection, you're called a bigot.)

Students who are taught only deductive reasoning cannot understand why anyone would ever disagree with their conclusions because, in their minds, they've "proved" themselves by very scientific principles. These students simply cannot see the circularity of their reasoning. (I have a lot of these students in my classes. I can explain, point to historical texts, argue from 20 different viewpoints, but I will never convince them of any other conclusion than their own, simply because they have "proof" of their position.)

The solution to the failing schools is to teach students an additional logical process - inductive reasoning. This is a different way to argue from the specific to the general. Like deductive reasoning, it argues from premises to conclusions. But unlike deductive reasoning, it draws its conclusions from a widely shared body of knowledge. It tends to include ideas, rather than exclude them. Importantly, it values the concept of wisdom above knowledge.

Certainly, inductive reasoning has problems - not the least of which is over-generalization. Its conclusions are less certain than deductive reasoning. But when we are talking about learning and understanding, uncertainty beats dogma.

After all, we learn the most when we discover how much we don't know. You can't teach students who already know "everything."