Latest update December 25th, 2024 1:10 AM
Oct 31, 2009 Letters
Dear Editor,
I write to clarify Mr. Freddie Kissoon’s misapplication of the term logical deduction in his column captioned “Rohee’s deduction has permanently damaged his Government” (Oct 29). This is another of a long line of missteps and misstatements. I disagree that Rohee’s statement has damaged the government.
Freddie penned that Minister Rohee, after noting four fires in the Hamid family’s various stores over the past two years, the “Home Affairs Minister adopted the Social Sciences methodology of logical deduction” to conclude that the fires were “suspicious”. Freddie repeated the term “logical deduction” several times during his usual anti-government tirade.
The topic of logical deduction is generally taught under Philosophy or in methodology courses on research in other disciplines. I learned about logic when I was barely 17 years old as a College Freshman at CCNY. I studied logic under distinguished Prof. William Hutcheon of CCNY. He published numerous articles and books on logic.
As an instructor at the University of Guyana teaching various subjects in the Social Sciences, Freddie must know there is “deductive logic” and “inductive logic” and the observer or researcher uses the term premises for the observations. As Dr. Hutcheon noted, inductive argument moves from the specific to the general, while deductive argument begins with the general and ends with the specific.
Generally speaking, according to books and articles, “arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws and rules are best expressed deductively”.
In inductive logic, an observer begins with a number of concrete observations.
Using Freddie’s example – one observes the four fires (which a Philosopher would call the premises since one’s observations may be flawed) and then forms a hypothesis or theory or conclusion. “Suspicious” is used to explain the observations or the conclusion drawn. In the inductive methodology, the observer (Rohee, in this example) does not hold his conclusion to be categorical since new observations may always invalidate it.
Deductive logic, on the other hand, begins with generalised premises. Sticking to Freddie’s example: “Businessmen will use shady tactics to make money”. The “Hs are businessmen”. The observer will proceed to the conclusions that are necessarily valid from those premises – “the Hs are shady”. That is not what Rohee is saying about the Hamids.
Deduction moves in the opposite direction from induction and lives or dies from the validity premise. Minister Rohee did not use the deductive method to reach his conclusion – he used inductive logic which can be amended based on further observations or additional premises.
But it seems Freddie is fond of the deductive method, since it is through this method he has concluded in so many columns that President Jagdeo is “no good”. The premises he used are: “The PPP government is evil”. “Jagdeo is a member of the PPP government”. Therefore, Jadgeo is evil”.
Most critics of the government stick to the deductive logic in attacking the government. An objective critic must be amenable to both deductive and inductive methodologies.
I urge Freddie and others of his ilk to try the inductive method – which is the basis of all science – to look for concrete examples of “evil deeds” of the government and then test their hypotheses. They may not want to try inductive reasoning because it may prove them wrong and therefore there will be nothing on which to vent their spleen.
Vishnu Bisram
Dec 25, 2024
Over 70 entries in as $7M in prizes at stake By Samuel Whyte Kaieteur Sports- The time has come and the wait is over and its gallop time as the biggest event for the year-end season is set for the...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Ah, Christmas—the season of goodwill, good cheer, and, let’s not forget, good riddance!... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The year 2024 has underscored a grim reality: poverty continues to be an unyielding... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]