Backwards Reasoning

[Siúil a Rúin]

Over the years I've come to realize that the majority of education I encountered over the years is based on backwards reasoning. This was true of religious systems, but also the analysis of my major subject area. It is true of most political ideologies and even scientists who begin with a hypothesis and then have an ego investment in proving it correct. When I learned the true nature of this process and how much it permeates everything I've encountered, I get discouraged about the possibility of knowing what's true and having a fundamentally different approach to analyzing reality.

This is a quick link I found for the purpose of starting this thread, although in the past I had opportunity to listen to some neuro-linguists discuss this issue on tape. "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" by Leonard Mlodinow also addresses this issue. Humans desire to see patterns and have rational cause and effects for the way things are in reality. We look at someone successful or impoverished and we backwards reason how these states are the rational outcome of choices. The book I refer to describes statistically how many outcomes are actually random, but we provide them with rational explanations. There are many psychological experiments documented in the book to demonstrate this is exactly what we do.

Backwards Reasoning
Think backwards. Start from what you want and then seek supporting logic.

If you cannot find sufficient reason then you may abandon the decision. Or you may resort to fallacy, particularly when you are more concerned with persuading than being logically correct.

In what ways have you encountered backwards reasoning in your education? How have you used it, and how do you work to break away from it?

 

[Coriolis]

Over the years I've come to realize that the majority of education I encountered over the years is based on backwards reasoning. This was true of religious systems, but also the analysis of my major subject area. It is true of most political ideologies and even scientists who begin with a hypothesis and then have an ego investment in proving it correct. When I learned the true nature of this process and how much it permeates everything I've encountered, I get discouraged about the possibility of knowing what's true and having a fundamentally different approach to analyzing reality.

I can't speak for religious systems and don't know what your subject area is, but I can say that most scientists I know do not approach hypotheses in this way. We are open to whatever the data show because that is our job, but we also know that a disproven hypothesis can be as valuable as a supported one. When things don't go as expected or predicted it points to something significant, which can be a real breakthrough. To the extent that scientists are motivated by ego (and I won't claim we are immune to this), this can be an equally attractive outcome.

This is a quick link I found for the purpose of starting this thread, although in the past I had opportunity to listen to some neuro-linguists discuss this issue on tape. "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" by Leonard Mlodinow also addresses this issue. Humans desire to see patterns and have rational cause and effects for the way things are in reality. We look at someone successful or impoverished and we backwards reason how these states are the rational outcome of choices. The book I refer to describes statistically how many outcomes are actually random, but we provide them with rational explanations. There are many psychological experiments documented in the book to demonstrate this is exactly what we do.

We can see how someone's choices led to their outcomes without necessarily considering it rational. All we are saying then is that A did in fact lead to B, not that it should have done so or was inevitable. Still, our choices do affect our outcomes, and if there were no rational or at least predictable connection between the two, it would be impossible to prepare in any way for one's future. I know people who repeatedly have made sound choices, even when beset by random events of the most negative kind. Others respond to similar events with poorer choices. The first group generally fares better than the second. Similarly I have a student who has proven adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Random events? Perhaps, but his responses to those events didn't help.

Mostly I see what you describe as backward reasoning used to justify inertia. People or groups who don't want to change, or even consider changing how they operate will work backwards from this status quo to try to build a justification of why it is in fact the best option and should continue. This is always frustrating and very short-sighted.