Based on the relative definition of induction that we supported in class –to lead into a conclusion based on personal observation- C. S. Lewis’s excerpt on the law of human nature does demonstrate inductive reasoning through his argument; I say this because of my own observations and inductive analysis. Lewis first states that there are laws of different manners that subject all things in the world. Organisms, specifically humans, are subjected to a biological set of laws that cannot be disobeyed.
The majority of these types of laws are not subject to choice for one to obey or disobey, simply because either option does not exist in terms of biological law. For example, one cannot choose whether or not to they want to breathe oxygen to live, or if they need to consume food to live. An example that C. S. Lewis sets up for readers is gravitation; underlying all bodies, it is not possible for things to disobey gravity. He illustrates inductive reasoning through his observation that leaving a stone unsupported in mid- air leads to it falling to the ground. Much like the stone, each man is bound to have the same effect.
The man does not have a choice to whether he is going to obey or disobey the law that while unsupported, gravity will result in him falling. There are laws, however, every man can choose to disobey, but only if the law is specific to his nature. Lewis explains that this is the Law of Nature. It is called the law of nature because the human race took the assumption that all people knew this law by nature and didn’t need to be taught about it. Lewis identifies that the human perspective of the idea of decent behavior was the topic that everyone supposedly knew about.
He reflects on the case that some people challenged the fact that everyone knew this law habitually and then he also challenged those who agreed with the idea that decent human behavior was not known pertaining to the differences amongst the moral teachings in civilizations throughout different eras. Lewis did not believe this idea to be true after he observed the differences in human standards of Hindus, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, and Romans. We see a demonstration of induction through his comparisons between these different cultures.
He believes morality standards have not changed throughout history, as an ever-changing morality would look completely different from what history has been. “Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. ” By observing what moral teachings were taken up in the past and relating them to the moral teachings of the present, Lewis makes a personal and uninfluenced judgement that standards, indeed have not changed.
Based on the definition of deduction from class, which is to lead down to a conclusion based on principle- C. S. Lewis’s excerpt “Power Behind” demonstrates deductive reasoning through his argument. Going off of the Law of Nature, C. S. Lewis drives to find out about the true meaning of the universe is as, he says, all men have been curious about this since the time men were able to think. Because deductive reasoning indicates an influence from an extensive outside opinion, two viewpoints have been cumulated around the beliefs of the universe’s origins.
Firstly, Lewis describes one belief called the materialist view. Materialists believe that matter and space have always existed; separate to stating that their origins and behaviors just happened by coincidence, there is no other knowledge behind this belief. In the occurrence of how the exact elements developed to initially create the Earth, and then how our planet was able to create the conditions to support life, and then how all of that coincided to create life itself, is all due to an extended series of events, all with one one thousandth chance of occurring.
Though some would find this very unconvincing, this theory was created through deductive reasoning, which C. S. Lewis exemplifies by stating the opinions of those who support this materialistic view. Though he doesn’t sound completely convinced himself in his excerpt, he doesn’t include any influence from his own personal judgment, but bases his conclusion on the popular and deductive opinions defined by materialists.
The second of the two different viewpoint C. S. Lewis looks at is the religious view, which by default, takes a more religious look into the universe’s creation. Behind the universe and its mysterious origins, religion would seem to believe in a being or mind that brings purpose to the creation of all matter. Though Lewis doesn’t specify to whom the religious being or state of mind is, the being he is speaking of represents God the Father. However, even though both the reader and C. S. Lewis are more than likely aware that this is the case; so it is doubtful that Lewis does not know that the being he is talking of is God.
In hindsight this also shows that Lewis is straying away from stating his own interpretation that the religious being would be God. Later on in the passage Lewis speaks on a truth that might be the only one we know for sure. “There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about…That one thing is Man. ” The reason C. S. Lewis is correct about this statement is because we are men, and of course we know about ourselves the best, independent of anything else. It is principle of us to know what we are.
This is an observation of civilization as a whole because all men share the same overall knowledge of what entails to be a man. With no need for observation, due to the inside information about being a part of the holistic society as men, what we know about men is fact. Therefore, this knowledge is based in principle because it is known and accepted by all. In both of his excerpts I noticed that there were a couple differences and a couple similarities pertaining to his inductive argument in the “Law of Nature” passage, and his deductive argument in the “Power Behind” passage.
In terms of the differences, C. S. Lewis took a more personal stance when he was talking on the law of nature, essentially because inductive arguments are supposed to be based off of personal opinion, while in his second excerpt about the universe he took a very deductive route when going through each point, giving his passage a more information based tone. I also noticed that the subject of his sentences for both of his passages matched the tone for both argument styles.
Essentially, since induction is based on personal opinion, Lewis subjected his comments with “I” (I believe, I need, I have), whereas in his second passage where he based his arguments on deduction, readers will see him subject his comments with “We” and “Our” (We do, We are, Ourselves), as deduction is structured to be based on a holistic approach where exterior popular opinion creates the basis for agreement and principle. On the other hand, though I didn’t notice as many, there were also some similarities between both passages.
By the end of both passages Lewis closes out with a reflection that he concludes and he always seems to stretch to reach a message that he wants readers to reflect on. In the first passage he exemplifies what he says is admirable. Specifically, he mentions that man should not be selfish and how we need to believe in such a thing as right and wrong, whereas in the second passage he points to behaving in a certain moral way. He goes into how since men know themselves, we need to look at the influence God has within us, as he might be commanding us through our own behaviors.
Based on the following passages and how each used a different technique of argumentation, I can see that there are definitive ways each has advantages and disadvantages over the other. The inductive approach seems to create more probability than deduction, as inductive reasoning creates a more reliable and consistent conclusion through taking one example of something from observation and applying it to all others of the same relevancy. In deductive reasoning you wouldn’t necessarily have the same knowledge without any of the inductive observations, as deduction is based off a string of inductive observations.
With induction you also learn things more effectively because it is based on learning through mistakes or other conclusions that you have already learned. In induction, every observation adds to knowledge and just builds off the last, creating an effective system to obtaining information, whereas in deduction there is too much outside influence and taking other people’s observations could either influence other negatively or create a system where one wouldn’t always learn on their own based on their past mistakes.
Nevertheless, deductive reasoning could also be beneficial to some as you could end up learning more due to the increased group of people you would be obtaining information from. You also wouldn’t make as many mistakes as one who only learned from mistakes, as you would be told what mistakes not to make before you actually did them yourself. Therefore, you would actually know more information than you would have if you used inductive reasoning.
Your information wouldn’t be as incorrect with deductive reasoning because inductive reasoning comes to a conclusion based on what they people see themselves, so while someone could see a bird flying and come to the conclusion that all birds fly, they would be incorrect; while with deductive reasoning, one could say that due to principle, even though one has seen a single bird flying, that does not necessarily mean that all birds fly. So, while inductive reasoning tends to have a more explorative method, deductive tends to look for a more accurate and informative means to argumentation.
