Foundations of philosophy
Deductive Reasoning
Starting with a general premise and working toward particular conclusions.
The big idea
Stephenson explicitly says he begins by assuming a major premise. Recognizing that method lets you follow the internal reasoning of the text while still asking whether its premises are supported. A logically organized argument and evidence for a clinical claim are different questions.
An everyday illustration
If a club rule says every member has a card, and Jo is a member, you can infer that Jo has a card. The conclusion depends on the starting statements being sound.
An original illustration to help explain the idea, not a quotation or evidence of a biological mechanism.
In the author’s words
“Deductive reasoning can be faulty if the propositions or premises are made unwisely; the examination of the details will quickly expose it.”
1927 edition · PDF page 18
Explore this book
Short excerpts from the indexed edition; line breaks are normalized. PDF page numbers refer to the source file, and may differ from printed page numbers.
Read it in context
Stephenson also cautions that deduction can be faulty when premises are chosen unwisely. That qualification belongs beside his endorsement of the method.
Keep the question going
Explore deductive reasoning with Ask B.J.
How does the Green Books discussion of deductive reasoning help a new reader understand chiropractic philosophy? Explain simply, cite the relevant passages, and distinguish historical philosophy from current clinical evidence.
Take this question to Ask B.J.Your question will be filled in for you to review. Ask B.J.’s existing account and daily question limits apply.