quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
As a judge, I’ve signed a few thousand warrants, all supported by a sworn affidavit(s) that the affiant believed to be true and supported by the “facts” therein alleged. I’ve also (as head of a Public Defender’s office with multiple attorneys and investigators under my charge) defended several thousand felony indictments. I also practiced criminal defense law for 20 years, death penalty murder to traffic violations.

It is amazing the number of those indictments and warrants went to shit when deductive reasoning was implied rather than the inductive reasoning used by most law enforcement officers and prosecutors. In other words…. Here’s the culprit so let’s find the facts that prove it, instead of, here’s the crime and let’s find facts that lead us to who the culprit is.

Nowhere is their a greater example of the old saying: when you assume, you’re likely to make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.

quote:

It is amazing the number of those indictments and warrants went to shit when deductive reasoning was implied rather than the inductive reasoning used by most law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
As a judge, I’ve signed a few thousand warrants, all supported by a sworn affidavit(s) that the affiant believed to be true and supported by the “facts” therein alleged. I’ve also (as head of a Public Defender’s office with multiple attorneys and investigators under my charge) defended several thousand felony indictments. I also practiced criminal defense law for 20 years, death penalty murder to traffic violations.

It is amazing the number of those indictments and warrants went to shit when deductive reasoning was implied rather than the inductive reasoning used by most law enforcement officers and prosecutors. In other words…. Here’s the culprit so let’s find the facts that prove it, instead of, here’s the crime and let’s find facts that lead us to who the culprit is.

Nowhere is their a greater example of the old saying: when you assume, you’re likely to make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.

I like that post for several reasons. I'll try to be concise.

Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are both logical reasoning. The way I understand it, summary, inductive is probability based on observation. Generally, it is insufficient in most cases, regarding proof or truth. Deductive is corroboration or essentially proof of tentative conclusions reached inductively. Deductive reasoning could also prove the probably or tentative conclusions reached inductively to be false. Either way, that's good, and the point is that both are intertwined.

Bluntly speaking, I think the judge got it wrong, backwards.

Here's an example of inductive reasoning, stated as a Syllogism:

1. The premise: The judge is full of himself and gets a lot wrong.

2. From observation, the evidence suggests he's full of himself, and also from observation, the evidence suggests from this and past posts that the Judge gets a lot wrong.

3. Thus, using probability, the inference is that everything he says is suspect.

We observed and figured that from inductive reasoning. Obviously, that's not proof of the tentative conclusion.

======================================

Here's how deductive reasoning (evidence) removes (some) benefit of doubt.

First paragraph above from the judge confirms "full of himself".

quote:

It is amazing the number of those indictments and warrants went to shit when deductive reasoning was implied rather than the inductive reasoning used by most law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

That quote is self-contradictory. Note how the word "implied" is used in conjunction with the rest of the sentence.

Also, the sentence starts with a false premise. Few, if any, of those indictments "went to shit" because of lack of evidence, but instead due to Trump's lawfare, and stalling the system.

Also, there is another false premise imbedded in the Judge's post, namely that one or the other type of logical reasoning is bad. That's wrong. Inductive reasoning may be insufficient, but not inherently wrong or bad when properly recognized for what it is.

Yet, IMO, those tidbits above are still not enough to prove the premise that everything the Judge says is false. So, keep giving us evidence so we can use deductive reasoning to affirm the premise per inductive reasoning.

======================================

I think it's important, and an opportunity to use a Syllogism that explains this whole thread, and argument:

1. The major premise: Inductive and deductive reasoning, or logic, is inextricably tethered to facts and evidence.

2. The minor premise: Lies, said or believed, are not inductive or deductive reasoning.

3. Logical Conclusion: Trump's lies said or believed are not reasoning or logic.

======================================

So far, here's the best article I have found to explain.

https://www.livescience.com/21...on-vs-induction.html

What's the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning?

(Excerpt - first paragraphs)

Sherlock Holmes, the fictional sleuth who famously resides on Baker Street, is known for his impressive powers of logical reasoning. With a quick visual sweep of a crime scene, he generates hypotheses, gathers observations and draws inferences that ultimately reveal the responsible criminal's methods and identity.

Holmes is often said to be a master of deductive reasoning, but he also leans heavily on inductive reasoning. Because of their similar names, however, these concepts are easy to mix up.

So what's the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? Read on to learn the key distinctions between these two modes of logic used by literary detectives and real-life scientists alike.

...

Deductive reasoning begins with a first premise, which is followed by a second premise and an inference, or a conclusion based on reasoning and evidence. A common form of deductive reasoning is the "syllogism," in which two statements — a major premise and a minor premise — together reach a logical conclusion.

Inductive reasoning uses specific and limited observations to draw general conclusions that can be applied more widely. So while deductive reasoning is more of a top-down approach — moving from a general premise to a specific case — inductive reasoning is the opposite. It uses a bottom-up approach to generate new premises, or hypotheses, based on observed patterns, according to the University of Illinois.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or inference. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory."

In science, she added, there is a constant interplay between inductive and deductive reasoning that leads researchers steadily closer to a truth that can be verified with certainty,

The reliability of a conclusion made with inductive logic depends on the completeness of the observations.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I just want to know how mint many search warrants you denied on the bench? A rough percentage would be fine.

quote:

It is amazing the number of those indictments and warrants went to shit when deductive reasoning was implied applied rather than the inductive reasoning used by most law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I just want to know how mint many search warrants you denied on the bench? A rough percentage would be fine.

Typos happen often and are forgivable.

I think it's silly to make a big deal out of a typo. It's a distraction from the point.

Regarding the Judge's word "implied" rather than "applied" --

Look at the sentence again:

quote:

It is amazing the number of those indictments and warrants went to shit when deductive reasoning was implied applied rather than the inductive reasoning used by most law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

In my analysis above I considered it likely that the Judge used the wrong word and may have meant "applied".

The sentence's conclusions are still wrong for the reasons already explained. Jack Smith's report filled in with deductive reasoning where inductive reasoning left off. The indictments didn't "went to shit" because of flawed deductive reasoning based in facts and evidence. The got dismissed because Trump won the election and because of corresponding DOJ rules not to prosecute a president.

JudgeG ... just counting time 'til I am again finding balm in Gilead chilled out somewhere in the Selous.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Give yourself a break.

I was just pointing out that Smith’s indictments at this point are (and forever will be) nothing but allegations and Trump is still presumed innocent. Quite often the allegations of a prosecutor go to shit. I didn’t say that they wouldn’t be proved if a trial ensued. Maybe, maybe not. It’s just that his allegations are nothing but unproven allegations at this point and even the sickest TDS sufferer needs to recognize that

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Give yourself a break.

I was just pointing out that Smith’s indictments at this point are (and forever will be) nothing but allegations and Trump is still presumed innocent. Quite often the allegations of a prosecutor go to shit. I didn’t say that they wouldn’t be proved if a trial ensued. Maybe, maybe not. It’s just that his allegations are nothing but unproven allegations at this point and even the sickest TDS sufferer needs to recognize that

Smith's job, for which he is immensely qualified, was to prove the case against Trump. That burden of proof was very high especially considering who the defendant is.

Jack Smith's report shows the proof. In comparison, Trump's allegations and claims (lies) do not meet even the lowest standards regarding burden of proof.

It is not reasonable to figure that Smith got an indictment, through a grand jury, with insufficient proof. Granted, such "proof" didn't pass the test of court arguments. But Trump's claims are ALL BS and in court would not save him from conviction. Trump's claims saved him from criminal conviction in the court of public opinion, where credibility of his spew outweighed facts and evidence.

JudgeG ... just counting time 'til I am again finding balm in Gilead chilled out somewhere in the Selous.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:

You’ve concluded, without a single opportunity for the accused to contest the allegations, Trump is guilty. Due process and a fair trial aren’t important to you, it seems.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
As a judge, I’ve signed a few thousand warrants, all supported by a sworn affidavit(s) that the affiant believed to be true and supported by the “facts” therein alleged. I’ve also (as head of a Public Defender’s office with multiple attorneys and investigators under my charge) defended several thousand felony indictments. I also practiced criminal defense law for 20 years, death penalty murder to traffic violations.

It is amazing the number of those indictments and warrants went to shit when deductive reasoning was implied rather than the inductive reasoning used by most law enforcement officers and prosecutors. In other words…. Here’s the culprit so let’s find the facts that prove it, instead of, here’s the crime and let’s find facts that lead us to who the culprit is.

Nowhere is their a greater example of the old saying: when you assume, you’re likely to make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.

I like that post for several reasons. I'll try to be concise.

Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are both logical reasoning. The way I understand it, summary, inductive is probability based on observation. Generally, it is insufficient in most cases, regarding proof or truth. Deductive is corroboration or essentially proof of tentative conclusions reached inductively. Deductive reasoning could also prove the probably or tentative conclusions reached inductively to be false. Either way, that's good, and the point is that both are intertwined.

Bluntly speaking, I think the judge got it wrong, backwards.

Here's an example of inductive reasoning, stated as a Syllogism:

1. The premise: The judge is full of himself and gets a lot wrong.

2. From observation, the evidence suggests he's full of himself, and also from observation, the evidence suggests from this and past posts that the Judge gets a lot wrong.

3. Thus, using probability, the inference is that everything he says is suspect.

We observed and figured that from inductive reasoning. Obviously, that's not proof of the tentative conclusion.

======================================

Here's how deductive reasoning (evidence) removes (some) benefit of doubt.

First paragraph above from the judge confirms "full of himself".

quote:

It is amazing the number of those indictments and warrants went to shit when deductive reasoning was implied rather than the inductive reasoning used by most law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

That quote is self-contradictory. Note how the word "implied" is used in conjunction with the rest of the sentence.

Also, the sentence starts with a false premise. Few, if any, of those indictments "went to shit" because of lack of evidence, but instead due to Trump's lawfare, and stalling the system.

Also, there is another false premise imbedded in the Judge's post, namely that one or the other type of logical reasoning is bad. That's wrong. Inductive reasoning may be insufficient, but not inherently wrong or bad when properly recognized for what it is.

Yet, IMO, those tidbits above are still not enough to prove the premise that everything the Judge says is false. So, keep giving us evidence so we can use deductive reasoning to affirm the premise per inductive reasoning.

======================================

I think it's important, and an opportunity to use a Syllogism that explains this whole thread, and argument:

1. The major premise: Inductive and deductive reasoning, or logic, is inextricably tethered to facts and evidence.

2. The minor premise: Lies, said or believed, are not inductive or deductive reasoning.

3. Logical Conclusion: Trump's lies said or believed are not reasoning or logic.

======================================

So far, here's the best article I have found to explain.

https://www.livescience.com/21...on-vs-induction.html

What's the difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning?

(Excerpt - first paragraphs)

Sherlock Holmes, the fictional sleuth who famously resides on Baker Street, is known for his impressive powers of logical reasoning. With a quick visual sweep of a crime scene, he generates hypotheses, gathers observations and draws inferences that ultimately reveal the responsible criminal's methods and identity.

Holmes is often said to be a master of deductive reasoning, but he also leans heavily on inductive reasoning. Because of their similar names, however, these concepts are easy to mix up.

So what's the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning? Read on to learn the key distinctions between these two modes of logic used by literary detectives and real-life scientists alike.

...

Deductive reasoning begins with a first premise, which is followed by a second premise and an inference, or a conclusion based on reasoning and evidence. A common form of deductive reasoning is the "syllogism," in which two statements — a major premise and a minor premise — together reach a logical conclusion.

Inductive reasoning uses specific and limited observations to draw general conclusions that can be applied more widely. So while deductive reasoning is more of a top-down approach — moving from a general premise to a specific case — inductive reasoning is the opposite. It uses a bottom-up approach to generate new premises, or hypotheses, based on observed patterns, according to the University of Illinois.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or inference. "In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. "We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory."

In science, she added, there is a constant interplay between inductive and deductive reasoning that leads researchers steadily closer to a truth that can be verified with certainty,

The reliability of a conclusion made with inductive logic depends on the completeness of the observations.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Almost humorously, but actually very sadly, (and probably unintentionally) you’ve made my point. And beyond any reasonable doubt.

You’ve concluded, without a single opportunity for the accused to contest the allegations, Trump is guilty. Due process and a fair trial aren’t important to you, it seems.

I guess that wins you a spot in the Beria wing of the TDS sanitarium.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Give yourself a break.

I was just pointing out that Smith’s indictments at this point are (and forever will be) nothing but allegations and Trump is still presumed innocent. Quite often the allegations of a prosecutor go to shit. I didn’t say that they wouldn’t be proved if a trial ensued. Maybe, maybe not. It’s just that his allegations are nothing but unproven allegations at this point and even the sickest TDS sufferer needs to recognize that

Smith's job, for which he is immensely qualified, was to prove the case against Trump. That burden of proof was very high especially considering who the defendant is.

Jack Smith's report shows the proof. In comparison, Trump's allegations and claims (lies) do not meet even the lowest standards regarding burden of proof.

It is not reasonable to figure that Smith got an indictment, through a grand jury, with insufficient proof. Granted, such "proof" didn't pass the test of court arguments. But Trump's claims are ALL BS and in court would not save him from conviction. Trump's claims saved him from criminal conviction in the court of public opinion, where credibility of his spew outweighed facts and evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Tabled?

ME is concluding, as already determined facts, unproven allegations in an indictment. I guess he believes all ham sandwiches are guilty. My experience has shown that there really are innocent sandwiches, especially if there’s Duke’s mayo and vine ripened tomatoes on board.

And the Jan 6th committee was undeniably constituted to deny anything adverse to a preconceived conclusion. I am not saying that what Trump did or didn’t do deserved (or didn’t deserve an impeachment). What I am saying is that when a partisan process was adopted by Democrats in the investigation and congressional hearings, it made the committee’s conclusions suspect (to enough voters, anyway) to elect #47.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Wow. More Inductive logic negating the primary facts.

GOP refused to work in a bipartisan manner and disrupted the process at all stages. They were not seeking the truth or justice.

What options did Congress have?

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Tabled?

ME is concluding, as already determined facts, unproven allegations in an indictment. I guess he believes all ham sandwiches are guilty. My experience has shown that there really are innocent sandwiches, especially if there’s Duke’s mayo and vine ripened tomatoes on board.

And the Jan 6th committee was undeniably constituted to deny anything adverse to a preconceived conclusion. I am not saying that what Trump did or didn’t do deserved (or didn’t deserve an impeachment). What I am saying is that when a partisan process was adopted by Democrats in the investigation and congressional hearings, it made the committee’s conclusions suspect (to enough voters, anyway) to elect #47.

quote:

the D refused to allow GOP selected candidates

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Without researching, based on recollection, I don't remember it that way, Judge.

The republicans chose disrupters, or the specific members best suited to mess up the investigation, such as Gym Jordon, a known saboteur.

So, Pelosi chose two real republicans, who sacrificed their careers doing the right thing.

And I think it's a Trump lie that they destroyed exculpatory evidence. I think there is no proof of that claim, like so much else in the spin.

The investigation was legit, the conclusions legit, based on facts proven beyond reasonable doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
You two guys need to read FRAMED by John Grissom. It’s a good primer for a lay person to understand how the system can fail when assumptions are made, the ends justify the means and results are predetermined before and without the accused being given a fair forum.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
You two guys need to read FRAMED by John Grissom. It’s a good primer for a lay person to understand how the system can fail when assumptions are made, the ends justify the means and results are predetermined before and without the accused being given a fair forum.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Naki:

The democrats wouldn’t allow the minority to choose their participants for the committee and did not allow cross examination of witnesses and “disappearanced” exculpatory evidence.



Wishing all you want will not change what the Democrats did.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Tabled?

ME is concluding as true (as already determined facts) unproven allegations in an indictment. I guess he believes all ham sandwiches are guilty. My experience has shown that there really are innocent sandwiches, especially if there’s Honey Baked, Duke’s mayo, spicy mustard, Kosher rye crisp lcebox lettuce and vine ripened tomatoes on board.

And the Jan 6th committee was undeniably constituted to deny anything adverse to a preconceived conclusion. I am not saying that what Trump did or didn’t do deserved (or didn’t deserve an impeachment). What I am saying is that when a partisan process was adopted by Democrats in the investigation and congressional hearings, it made the committee’s conclusions suspect (to enough voters, anyway) to elect #47.

quote:

Then comes Jack Smith who (rightfully or wrongly) most of America paint with the broad brush of Fani Willis, Merchan and E. Jean Carrol, etc. As to Smith’s report, many will believe every allegation as gospel and just as religiously not believe the indictments against Hunter, the special prosecutors’ affirmations that both Hillary and Joe committed Federal felonies and that Garland didn’t practice lawfare.

quote:

What the Dems did was foil the GOP plan to sabotage the January 6 inquiry by appointing a Jim Jordan type who would do nothing but obstruct and obfuscate.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:


What the Dems did was foil the GOP plan to sabotage the January 6 inquiry by appointing a Jim Jordan type who would do nothing but obstruct and obfuscate.

quote:

criticism

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Respect MLK’s courage

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

criticism

"Criticism" is not what Jordon is about and you know it.

Well, maybe you don't know the difference in spin/lies and criticism.

quote:

and the drama would have been a bit more entertaining