Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.
Reasoning has been divided into two basic types – inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is universal, emerges at a very young age, and is fundamentally attuned to the structure of the brain and how memory is stored. Inductive reasoning is the emergence of a general principle from the experiences of a person. A toddler shows basic inductive reasoning when, after touching several hot surfaces, they decide that hot surfaces burn. After this, there is an almost universal reaction to telling them something is hot – they clutch one hand with the other, and with a very concerned look say “hot” (or something like that). Deductive reasoning at its best.
Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is not natural, and must be learned. The cognitive functioning that is necessary to engage in deductive reasoning develops during adolescence – the ability to engage in abstract thought processes. However, deductive reasoning is difficult to carry out, and normally becomes evident after formal instruction in deductive reasoning. This is the type of thinking that Henry Ford was referring to.
Unfortunately, the number of adults who ever learn to reason deductively is not high. Studies in the 1960s and 1970s demonstrated that as few as 40% of North American adults are unable to use deductive reasoning to solve problems and understand the world, with the ability being directly linked to educational attainment. More recent studies have suggested that the number of people who are able to engage in deductive reasoning has dropped from about 40% to as low as 20%. This is alarming for a number of reasons.
First, it demonstrates a serious shortfall in the education system. With our obsession in education for memorizing more stuff and finding the right answer, there is no room left for teaching people to think.
Why is this a problem? Obviously, with so large a proportion of the population unable to use deductive reasoning, and society is still functioning – or is it?
Being unable to use deductive reasoning means that an individual is unable to follow the logic that is used to reach a conclusion that is based on deductive reasoning. It is not that a person doesn’t want to, they are simply unable to because of a lack of training.
Why does this matter? Because there is a growing chasm between the scientific world and society in general. Most of the members of our society are cognitively unable to follow the arguments scientists use to demonstrate what they are finding, and scientists can’t understand why the members of our society just don’t look at the data and come to the same, obvious conclusions that they have. The lack of deductive reasoning means that members of society are simply unable to follow the logic, and so must turn to other sources to find out the truth.
Thing about climate change, or immunization. Within the scientific community, and among generally well educated members of society (and there is a strong correlation) who can engage in deductive reasoning, there is confusion about how there can even be a controversy. For those who can use deductive reasoning, there is no controversy. The facts speak for themselves when they are followed through the logical sequence that leads to a conclusion. The science is absolutely solid.
The lack of ability to engage in deductive reasoning for a majority of participants in a Western Democracy is problematic, to say the least.
Another reason, which will have to be dealt with in a future blog post, is the effect that the lack of deductive reasoning ability (or formal operational thinking in developmental terms) has on the development of moral reasoning.
We can do better than this – if we are willing to look closely at ourselves and embrace the necessary changes.