glossaLAB - User contributions [en]

Draft:Lumen

2025-01-31T16:44:33Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* OUR OWN UTOPIA STORY */

Article prepared by: [[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]], [[User:Maider Acedo López]] and [[User:Izaro Belloso]].

== OUR OWN UTOPIA STORY ==
In the distant age of harmony, long before man forgot the principles of equity, there was a place where dreams of equality, liberty and fraternity were not just abstract ideals, but a palpable reality. That place was called Lumen, a city that knew no darkness, neither physical nor moral, as its inhabitants, guided by deep principles of cooperation, love and justice, lived in perfect balance.

Lumen was no ordinary city, it was the product of years of ethical evolution, a civilisation that, after many falls and rebuildings, had come to understand the importance of living without distinction. There was no poverty or wealth; hunger had been eradicated long before the new generations were born. People were not defined by money, power or lineage; they were defined by their ability to share, listen and contribute to collective well-being.

The creation of Lumen had originated centuries ago, in a time of great divisions. The ancient inhabitants of the world lived in societies where gold, power and influence dictated the fate of people. Starvation and inequality were common, and wars over resources were frequent. But a small group of visionaries began to work on a revolutionary idea: if all human beings had access to the same things and no one was above another, what would the world be like?

Over time, this group managed to build Lumen, a city that functioned on a fundamental principle: ‘The welfare of all is the welfare of one’.

Lumen is situated in the center of Solaria, a vast area known for its beautiful, rich landscapes and warm climate. The city is situated at the merging of two significant rivers that flow down from the highlands, surrounded by vast deserts and breathtaking mountain ranges. These rivers, which converge near the city, provide a steady water supply and contribute to the city’s agricultural abundance. The position of Lumen allows it to maintain a strategic advantage, offering access to both the natural resources from the mountains and the fertile lands of the river valleys.

The city’s geolocation places it in a zone of moderate elevation, ensuring a balance between the extremes of high-altitude climates and the harshness of the low desert plains. The surrounding hills provide a natural buffer against harsh winds, creating a microclimate that promotes year-round growth of plants, trees, and crops. The area is sheltered enough to encourage the flourishing of both urban and natural ecosystems, making it a haven for biodiversity. The nearby mountains also serve as a spiritual symbol, as they stand tall on the horizon, embodying the aspirations of Lumen’s citizens for stability and endurance.

Lumen’s position between the desert and mountain ranges also ensures that it remains somewhat isolated from the surrounding cities, which gives it a unique cultural and political identity. This geographical separation allows Lumen to maintain its ideals of peace, harmony, and justice without much external influence. However, it is not completely isolated from the rest of Solaria, as the city is connected to nearby areas by well-maintained roads and bridges, facilitating transit, trade, and cultural exchange. These relationships ensure that Lumen's residents stay aware and involved with the outside world by promoting a balance between independence and openness to outside influences.

The city is located strategically next to the Kirk satellite, an advanced technological device that circles over Lumen. In addition to being a representation of Lumen's link to the wider universe, this satellite also serves a functional purpose by controlling the city's technological and communications system. The satellite’s influence reaches down into the city, maintaining a constant connection with other regions and reinforcing Lumen’s ideal of interconnectedness. This unique positioning of Lumen at the confluence of natural beauty, strategic isolation, and technological advancement shapes its identity and guides the lives of its people.

The city of Lumen is a symbol of the delicate balance between human innovation and nature. Its architecture blends perfectly with its surroundings, a structure built on the principles of justice, harmony and peace.

Smooth stones in the shape of river stones, transparent glass walls that reflect the vast sky, and wood from trees carefully grown to blend in with the environment are some of the materials used to construct the buildings in Lumen. The open and flowing design of the buildings, often with curved lines that mimic the gentle flow of nature, and their green, plant-filled roofs help to create a sense of continuity between the natural and artificial worlds.

The town's central square, where the traditional festivities are held, is large and open, lined with large circular stone pavers that resemble ripples in a pond, symbolising the spread of peaceful influence. Trees, their branches arching gracefully, provide shade and shelter, and fountains of clear, flowing water add to the tranquil atmosphere. In the distance, the majestic Kirk satellite can be seen in the sky, a symbol of the city’s connection to the cosmos and a reminder of the importance of balance between the Earth and the stars.

The natural surroundings of Lumen are as harmonious as the city itself. Large fields of golden grass stretch out in every direction, blowing in the breeze, while gently rounded hills are dotted with colourful wildflowers that change with the seasons. Forests of tall, slim trees, their trunks pale and almost luminous, offer peaceful groves where citizens come to meditate, find comfort or simply enjoy the quiet beauty of nature. These groves, carefully protected, are sacred spaces where harmony is sought through tranquillity and reflection.

Another distinctive aspect of Lumen's geography are its rivers, which flow through the city like veins. The waters are crystal clear, flowing steadily but slowly, and never losing their serenity. These rivers are crossed by little bridges with decorative railings that link different areas of the city and highlight the notion that even the smallest acts of collaboration may bring people together.

In this peaceful world, every building, every tree, and every river seems to have been placed with a purpose, creating a city that is both a physical and philosophical representation of harmony and balance.

In Lumen, there was no distinction between rich and poor. Social classes had long since been eradicated. Every inhabitant, from the youngest to the oldest, had access to the same resources: education, health, food and welfare. The work system was different from the old cities. Here, work was not an obligation to survive, but a voluntary activity aimed at contributing to the common good. There was no economic pressure, and people chose to do what they were passionate about. Workers, scientists, artists and philosophers shared their wisdom and skills, working side by side for a common goal.

Advanced technology, the result of shared effort, allowed basic needs to be met automatically. Energy was renewable, obtained from natural sources such as wind, sun and water. The houses were self-sufficient, built with recycled and biocompatible materials. Instead of being simple residences, the homes were small ecosystems where inhabitants grew their own food and recycled everything they used.

Access to education was universal and free. From an early age, children learned about human history, its mistakes and achievements, and how to work together to create a better future. Teaching was not aimed at gaining qualifications or skills to compete, but at strengthening character, empathy and collaboration.

People in this city reside in cooperative communities known as "support clusters," where they share resources and duties. In addition to guiding legislation, the principles of justice, peace, and harmony serve as the cornerstone of human interactions. The idea of home transcends biological relationships, and families come in a variety of forms. Children are raised in settings where their education and general well-being are attended to by the entire community in addition to their parents.

In this city, there was a very special group of friends. Among them were Elios, Lira and Tarin. Elios was a young man with the unique ability to communicate with the elements of nature. Since childhood he had developed a deep connection with water, wind and earth. He could make forests grow, calm storms and purify rivers. His gift made him the protector of Lumen's ecosystems, teaching everyone to live in symbiosis with their environment. For him, harmony was essential, as he understood that the balance between man and nature was the basis of all progress. Alongside him was his great friend Lira, an expert mediator, born in the city of Serenity, where disputes between peoples were always resolved through dialogue and understanding. Her ability to listen and understand others made her a respected leader who never resorted to violence or coercion. Lira organised peace circles where all voices were heard, creating solutions that would benefit all, without anyone being oppressed or ignored. Finally, the third component of the trio of friends was Tarin, a former judge and defender of fairness. His task was not only to judge, but also to teach people about the importance of justice in a balanced society. With his firm but fair perspective, he had abolished all kinds of discrimination and corruption in Lumen. He understood that justice was not only about punishing injustices but securing that all inhabitants had the same access to resources and opportunities, without any distinctions.

The three friends shared a common neighborhood in Lumen, Lakua, where they devoted their days to ensuring Lumen's justice, harmony, and peace. They enjoyed going to the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies in their spare time, where all citizens were valued and had a say in the decision-making process, which was based on agreement. The population met once a month through the Open Assemblies to talk about significant concerns, always looking for peaceful and inclusive solutions. Lumen arranged its governmental structure as follows:

Lumen's governmental structure was based on a council composed of representatives from different sectors of society: workers, educators, scientists, artists, elders and youth. This council, known as the Harmony Council, was responsible for making important decisions affecting the community. Council members were not elected by popular vote, but were selected for their commitment to Lumen's core values and their ability to mediate and make fair decisions.

Major decisions were made at the Open Assembly, a democratic forum where all citizens of Lumen had the right to make proposals, debate and vote on matters of collective interest. The Assembly was held every month, and decisions were taken by consensus. The active participation of citizens was crucial, as every voice was heard and consensus was reached rather than a majority imposing its will.

To ensure that government decisions were fair and equitable, Lumen relied on a group of mediators, known as the ‘Mediators of Harmony’. These individuals were selected for their ability to remain calm and seek peaceful solutions to disputes or conflicts. They acted as facilitators in the Open Assembly and in government decisions, ensuring that solutions were not only practical, but also reflected the values of peace, equity and justice.

In addition to the Open Assembly, Lumen was organised into small Local Action Circles, which are community groups responsible for making decisions on day-to-day and local issues, such as the distribution of resources, the organisation of community events and the resolution of minor conflicts. These circles allowed for greater autonomy and participation of citizens in local decision-making, promoting a sense of responsibility and ownership.

A Consensus System was developed in Lumen. Decisions were not taken by simple majority, but by a consensus. This meant that all members of the community had to reach a common agreement before an important decision was taken. This approach was intended to ensure that all voices were heard and that the decisions reflected the collective interest, avoiding the imposition of one party's will on another. If consensus could not be reached, further discussions and deliberations were held until a solution which everyone was satisfied with was reached.

The three boys loved being part of these Assemblies and understanding the inside functioning of Lumen. All three were very happy to belong to this society and were sure that nothing would ever break the harmony of Lumen, as they were its guardians. They lived happily with their families, or what in Lumen is understood as family. In this city the notion of family extends beyond blood ties. Citizens understand that the raising and education of children is not only the responsibility of the biological parents, but of the whole community. Therefore, children grow up surrounded by a wide circle of supportive and guiding adults, from grandparents to neighbours, creating a sense of collective belonging. To reinforce this loyalty to your family, every year the ‘Ritual of the Stones’ was celebrated. It was customary for all members of the family—biological or adoptive—to get together to discuss the past year, share achievements and challenges, and reinforce the relationships that unite them. Small tokens known as "Commitment Stones," which symbolized each family member's dedication to the group's overall welfare, were presented during the event. On their tenth birthday, the youngest family member was required to make this offering. It was Elios' younger brother's turn this year.

Elios was very excited about this fact, he had been waiting for this moment for years. For him, his little brother was everything he had, he raised him as if he was his own son. He taught him everything he needed to know about peace, harmony and love for others and he couldn't wait for his brother to do the sacred ritual. He remembered when it was his turn to do it, and he would never forget the moment he handed the stone to his grandfather. He wanted the experience for his brother to be the same or even better. Moreover, this year it would be even more special because the ritual would take place on the same day as The Feast of Harmony, Lumen's National Holiday, which he and his friends had the honour of preparing this year.

While the preparations for the party were keeping the guardians busy, a new group of kids arrived in town. They passed unnoticed among the good citizens of Lumen who, engrossed in the harmony and peace, did not realise the danger they were about to face. These boys were The Defiant. The members of the group were called Xera, Varys and Korra. These kids were lost kids, kids who after challenging the harmony and peace of other cities, were banished from them and forced to wander in the desert that separated the different cities. Forgotten and abandoned by their families, for them there was no such thing as a perfect society. Harmony, peace and justice seemed to them like a fantasy story and so, in their words, they wanted to open people's eyes, to make them realise that the government was controlling them by offering them a false sense of power. In the narrator's words, they wanted to destroy the systems from within so that no one else could live in harmony, peace and justice.

The group included Xera, the leader of the Defiant, Varys, an expert strategist, and Korra, the vigilante. All three boys hailed from the city of Cambria. They believed that the stability of Solaria had suffocated progress. Too much harmony had stopped innovation and personal growth. They believed that ambition and competition were necessary for humanity to advance. To this end, they had a well-organised plan to spread doubts among the people of Lumen. With this, they would gradually make the people acknowledge the reality and destroy the ‘perfect’ system. They would start this plan at the Harmony Party, where the whole city would gather.

The big day arrived. Elios, Lira and Tarin were preparing for the two most important celebrations of the year. They had worked hard to keep Lumen's values intact this year and the city had decided to honour them at the Harmony Festival as well. Thrilled, happy and excited, they arrived at the central square of the city where everyone was waiting for them. They greeted everyone and then the dancing, singing and games began. Food and drink were not to be missed either.

Meanwhile, the Defiant also arrived at the party. Once there, they split up and began their plan. During the previous days, the boys had been leaving a series of speeches and secret propaganda in the mailboxes of certain people they had already studied, people who had already shown a certain dissatisfaction with the system. They were the first to be approached by the Defiant.

Xera argued that the absence of competition and constant cooperation in Lumen had led to a lazy and conformist society, where true ambition and the desire to improve had disappeared. Varys, for the other hand, spread the idea that the peace experienced in Lumen was an illusion.Society had discovered ways to avoid issues rather than face conflict and disagreements directly, which had only resulted in a fragile and superficial peace.

Korra, finally, introduced the notion that Lumen had made people equal, but at the cost of their authenticity and individual growth. He argued that justice had established a system where everyone was treated equally, but people's true abilities and talents were not sufficiently valued. Instead of a world where differences were celebrated, Lumen had created a culture of mediocrity, where no one person stood out more than another. She also promoted a new idea, the exaltation of differences, where individual achievements were to be visibly rewarded, promoting a system that recognised the exceptional abilities of each individual.

In doing so, Xera's followers began to organise secret activities that challenged the peaceful norms of Lumen, engaging in clandestine games and competitions that destabilised the harmonious coexistence. Varys convinced several mediators of harmony that true peace would only be achieved when citizens confronted their differences and fought openly for their beliefs. Under this influence, small tensions began to emerge between communities that had never before challenged each other.

The impact of The Defiant was soon felt. The communities of Lumen began to experience a gradual breakdown of harmony. Xera's secret competitive games caused cooperative relationships to become tense. The mistrust created by Varys led to divisions between different groups that, prior to this influence, had been united in peace. And Korra's ideas of blended inequality began to gain support among those who felt their talents were not being recognised.

In the face of the tremendous commotion, certain sectors of society were very concerned about the danger to the values of Lumen. They brought together in an Open Assembly those responsible for maintaining the balance of Lumen, among them were our guardians. When it was Elios' turn to speak, he warned that it was normal that sometimes people would have different ideas but that they did not have to worry about anything, as the citizens of Lumen were wise and would know how to return to the path of balance. This reassured the mediators of harmony, but without much confidence, they put the three guardians in charge of restoring the balance.

Over the months, far from decreasing, the number of people who began to take a critical view of the Lumen system increased. It came to the point where a new movement contrary to the ideals of the city of Lumen, the Individual Freedom Movement, gained power, including several mediators of harmony in its ranks. At the Open Assembly in June 2300, they presented their thoughts to the astonished looks of the guardians. Among their thoughts were the creation of spaces where conflict is welcomed and managed openly, without the need for hiding or avoiding it. Leaders like Korra pushed this ideology, promoting a vision where people could have more freedom to pursue their own interests without being so constrained by the collective needs of society.

Lumen became divided as a result of this movement, with some members of the population standing up for a greater individual freedom at the expense of the wider community. The belief that harmony could only exist if everyone made sacrifices for the common good was called into question when the conflicts between individual rights and the general welfare turned into a philosophical and political dispute.

One of the guards, Lira, was among the group of people who started raising concerns. She had dedicated her entire life to preserving the principles that her community had taught her, fighting for harmony and communication in which all people were treated with respect and felt listened. Looking at this new situation, she really began to think about new ideas that she had never thought about before. Lira began to reflect on the need for a peace that is not just based on the absence of conflict, but on true equity and the inclusion of all voices, even those that challenge the status quo. In her moments of meditation, she asked: ‘Is harmony really possible if the dissonant voices are never heard, if the deep problems of society are ignored for the sake of apparent unity? Even if she already felt this way, she kept it from her friends.

Still feeling strange, Lira turned to the call of her friends, the guardians, who, faced with the tremendous commotion and not knowing what to do, turned to Thalia, the guardian of knowledge, Lumen's mentor and advisor. She was a wise old woman, known for her vast understanding of Lumen's history and her ability to teach the younger generation. She was one of the first to help create the structure of the society, and her role had always been to ensure that the values of harmony, peace and justice were not forgotten over time. Although her wisdom was unimaginable, her age and her emotional distance from the youth of Lumen sometimes made her feel that her vision was outdated. She often faced uncertainty as to whether society had moved too far forward and away from its original principles.

The guardians explained to Thalia everything that had happened in the last few months. Unlike the horrified and worried expressions of the guardians, she was not surprised at all. In her 103 years, it was not the first time she had seen something like this. She was well aware that maintaining the values of harmony, peace and justice and having them work perfectly within a society was not easy. She had seen it herself on other occasions with other groups of Defiant who came to the city with the desire to wreak havoc. She explained to them past situations and how they had often tried to disrupt the harmony of things. A talk that served to reinforce Lira's vision above all, who again reminded them of the importance of keeping core values alive. Elder Thalia's teachings from the past illuminated the path of the guardians, who found solutions to deal with the ‘chaos’ of the challengers.

They knew that each of the antagonists represented a side of the challenges associated with any ideal society, but they also understood that they had to act with caution, because a direct confrontation could destroy what Lumen had built. The guardians held an assembly, this time a private one, of the founding members of the Individual Freedom Movement. There, the guardians spoke to the three Defiant in an attempt to bring them to their senses.

Elios explained to Xera the real meaning of competition by using his talent to harmonize nature. He demonstrated to her how uncontrolled ambition, lacking teamwork and respect for one another, might ruin the social peace. However, Lira clarified that genuine peace resulted from the fair and equitable resolution of conflicts rather than their absence. She showed how conflict does not have to be destructive if it is approached with compassion and open communication. Finally, Tarin showed that, while individual differences are important, true justice is not about rewarding some over others, but about ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities to develop. He explained that equality did not mean homogeneity, but the creation of a system where each individual could reach their full potential, regardless of their natural abilities or talents.

After debating for 3 and a half days, the members of the Individual Freedom Movement and the guardians decided to set a day for a new Open Assembly, where all these issues would be debated and discussed by the people. Elios, together with Xera, stood at the central stand where everyone could listen to them. Elios was very nervous, as this day could dictate the future of his beloved city. He looked down and saw that all his family and community were there, waiting to see what would happen. But what calmed him the most, and at the same time filled him with strength, was to see his little brother. Are the values he grew up with really ideal and perfect, or did he have to be open to listen to certain changes that could make the lives of the citizens of Lumen better? The silent doubt was beginning to creep into him.

The assembly discussed a number of challenges that Lumen would have to face in the future. Among them, the challenge of maintaining peace without losing resilience, inequality in the distribution of resources or the implementation of education in a non-conflict society. The proposal for the latter was made by Vela, an elderly mediator who specialised in resolving disputes between the inhabitants of Lumen, from family disagreements to small community disputes. Her gift for understanding other people's emotions made her an invaluable resource for keeping the peace. However, she faced an internal crisis. As Lumen's society became more homogeneous and stable, she began to wonder if her role was less important. She often felt frustrated that conflicts had been reduced to minor issues and was afraid that her ability was not as relevant as before. This reflected the existential dilemmas that can arise in a society where conflict seems to have disappeared. This led to a question in the Assembly as to whether peace is more than simply the absence of disputes.

At the end of the debate, there was a breath of fresh air in the air. As they opened the door of the Assembly and stepped back out onto the street, the light from the Kirk satellite shone brightly overhead, creating a welcoming, bright and cheerful atmosphere for the inhabitants. New beginnings and processes of change were on the horizon for these citizens.

It had been decided to go for a change, a new society but based on the old fundamental values on which Lumen had been built. Finally, the Harmony Council decided, by consensus, to open this space for debate, allowing the established norms to be questioned. It was the first step towards a society that, although still perfect in its form, now allows itself to be constantly questioned and transformed. Through this process of reflection and change, Solaria began to understand that true harmony is not a static state, but a continuous process of learning and growth. Citizens no longer feared disagreements, but saw them as opportunities to improve their society.

Lumen reveals an uncomfortable truth: even in a world that seems perfect, there are always elements of doubt, conflict and discontent. Peace, harmony and justice are noble ideals, but the characters show us that their implementation is never perfect or easy. The doubts of Lira, Elios and Vela open a window into reflection on their own beliefs: is peace true if disagreement is not allowed? Is justice a concept that is only achieved in conformity, or is it in the constant struggle for the common good, even if this means confronting ourselves and others? Are we willing to challenge our beliefs and the status quo for a better future?

In Solaria, as in the real world, peace and justice are not something that is achieved once and forever. They are principles that must be constantly defended and challenged, so that they remain real and not just a comfortable illusion.

In the end, the guardians managed to convince the Defiant that instead of sowing mistrust, Solaria should face challenges collectively, learning from their differences rather than confronting them. They promised that together, they would look for ways to encourage innovation without losing balance with the environment and cooperation among citizens. The Defiant accepted and became full citizens of Lumen. They stopped wandering the deserts in search of creating chaos, because they understood that being part of a community and working and fighting for it was much more fulfilling and much happier.

From that day on, the day of The Feast of Harmony changed the date to the day when Lumen accepted that their principles of harmony, peace and justice could have different meanings and that discussing them was indispensable to advance them and not to lose them.

== LUMEN VS DIFFERENT HISTORICAL UTOPIAS AND DYSTOPIAS ==
A story is a fiction about something we would like to happen, a fantasy about a world without social classes, social justice, where people simply do not have to survive but to live.

'''Utopia,''' in this way, is understood as two things: firstly, the ‘desirable plan, project, doctrine or system that seems very difficult to realise’ and secondly, the ‘imaginative representation of a future society with characteristics that favour the human good’, that is, a society so perfect and idealised that it is practically impossible to reach it (Real Academia Española, n.d.)<ref>Real Academia Española. (n.d.). ''Utopía''. En Diccionario de la lengua española (23rd ed.). Retrieved from [https://dle.rae.es/utop%C3%ADa]</ref>.

A '''dystopia''' or anti-utopia is a fictional society that is undesirable in itself. The term, derived from Greek, was created by John Stuart Mill in the late 19th century as a direct antonym of utopia, which in turn was coined by St Thomas More (trad. 1964) and is the title of his best-known work, published in 1516, in which he describes a model for an ideal society with minimal levels of crime, violence and poverty (Wikipedia contributors, 2024a)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024a, December 19). Dystopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 12:01, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dystopia&oldid=1263860704]</ref>.

Despite being a history of our own, utopias and dystopias are concepts that have a long history. Authors such as Plato, in ''The Republic'' (trad. 1988)<ref>Plato. (1988). ''República'' (Trad. C. Eggers). Editorial Gredos S.A. (Original work published in 315 a.c.).</ref>, describe ideal societies, in this case, governed by philosopher-kings, where justice and social harmony are the fundamental pillars. Thomas More, in his work ''Utopia'' (trad. 1964)<ref name=":3">More, T. (1964). ''Utopia'' (Trad. Zero, S. A. Telleche). Editorial ZYX S.A. (Original work published in 1516).</ref>, gives his name to the genre by imagining an island with a perfect political and social system, which indirectly criticises the problems of Renaissance Europe. On the other hand, Francis Bacon in his work ''The New Atlantis'' (1627)<ref>Bacon, F. (1627). ''New Atlantis''. In W. Rawley (Ed.), ''Sylva Sylvarum: Or a Natural History''. London: Printed by J. H. for William Lee.</ref> explores an ideal society based on scientific knowledge and collaboration for human progress and development. Later, Edward Bellamy, through his work ''Looking Backwards: 2000-1887'' (1888)<ref>Bellamy, E. (1888). ''Mirando hacia atrás: 2000-1887''. Ediciones Akal (originally published by Ticknor & Company).</ref>, talked about a socialist future in which economic and social inequalities don’t exist.

In the field of dystopias, authors such as George Orwell, with ''1984'' (1949)<ref>Orwell, G. (1949). ''1984''. Harcourt, Brace and Company.</ref>, make a fierce criticism of totalitarianism, showing a world of constant surveillance and manipulation of thought. Aldous Huxley, in ''Brave New World'' (1932)<ref name=":0">Huxley, A. (2006). ''Brave new world'' (Reprint edition). Harper Perennial Modern Classics. (Original work published 1932).</ref>, posits a technocratic dystopia where pleasure and mass consumption replace individual freedom. Ray Bradbury, with ''Fahrenheit 451'' (1953)<ref>Bradbury, R. (1953). ''Fahrenheit 451''. Ballantine Books.</ref>, describes a society in which control is exercised through ignorance and superficial entertainment, as books are banned. Margaret Atwood, in ''The Handmaid's Tale'' (1985)<ref>Atwood, M. (1985). ''El cuento de la criada''. McClelland & Stewart.</ref>, dazzles us with a misogynistic dystopia where women are stripped of their fundamental rights, and are seen only as reproductive devices.

Yevgeny Zamiatin, author of ''We'' (1920)<ref>Zamiatin, Y. (1920). ''We''. E. P. Dutton (original work published 1924).</ref>, conceives one of the first modern dystopias, set in a world where power is unequally distributed, as the state wields power against society, creating dependency and subordination. On the other hand, Philip K. Dick, in ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'' (1968)<ref>Dick, P. K. (1968). ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?''. Doubleday.</ref>, reflects on a dystopian future where there is no distinction between humans and machines, with identity and humanity being the subject of discussion.

Authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin, in ''The Dispossessed'' (1974)<ref>Le Guin, U. K. (1974). ''The Dispossessed.'' Harper & Row.</ref>, combines both approaches by narrating the story of two opposing worlds: one capitalist and the other anarchist, examining both utopian ideals and their limits. H.G. Wells, too, with ''A Modern Utopia'' (1905)<ref>Wells, H. G. (1905). ''A Modern Utopia''. Chapman and Hall.</ref>, examines how a utopia could work in practice, although he also wrote dystopias such as ''The Time Machine'' (1895)<ref>Wells, H. G. (1895). ''The Time Machine.'' Editorial Heinemann.</ref>.

These works, by both utopian and dystopian authors, have not only defined their respective genres, but have also profoundly influenced how we imagine, question and critique human societies.

There has been an evolution of these same terms, adapting to the advances and needs of the society of the moment. They all have in common that the main basis is a critique of the society of the moment. We could even consider it an escape from it, a way of coping with it. Thanks to this evolution, the classification of utopian societies would be as follows: political and historical utopia, economic utopia, technological utopia, ecological utopia and religious or spiritual utopia (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024b, October 22). Utopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:54, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&oldid=1252700236]</ref>.

Although following the classification of utopias underlying the ideals of the Information Society, discussed in the presentation of the course, there are six families of utopias: Computable Language, Computable Thought, Unlimited Availability of Knowledge, Computable Social Order (Normalization), Communication without borders, and Security vs Trust of the Information Society.

In this case, our history is framed within the concept of ''Computable Social Order'', as it idealises a just, egalitarian and equitable society. This framework allows for a more systematic analysis of our history with different historical utopias and dystopias of our choice, facilitating the identification of common patterns and significant differences in these visions of the future societies.

Nicholas de Cusa (1401-1464), a German Renaissance philosopher, theologian and mathematician, did not explicitly propose a utopia in the modern sense of the term, but his ideas can be interpreted as the foundations of a ‘computable social order’ in certain respects (Wikipedia contributors, 2024c)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024c, September 7). Nicholas of Cusa. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:53, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_of_Cusa&oldid=1244461138]</ref>. His thought was based on principles of harmony, equality and the search for an underlying unity in diversity, ideas that could be related to an ideal society regulated by rational principles. In his work ''De Concordantia Catholica'', Nicholas de Cusa (1433)<ref>English translation in ''De concordantia catholica (The Catholic Concordance)'', tr. P Sigmund, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, (Cambridge: CUP, 1991).</ref> advocates the active participation of communities in government, proposing a model where decisions are made collectively. This idea is consistent with our decision-making, reminding us of the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies where the voice of every citizen is important, where consensus is sought, because following Cusa (1440)<ref name=":2">English translation in Bond, H. Lawrence (ed.), ''Nicholas of Cusa: Selected Spiritual Writings'', Classics of Western Spirituality, (New York: Paulist Press, 1997).</ref> in his work ''De Docta Ignorantia'', the recognition of universal ‘ignorance’ fosters intellectual equality among human beings, which can be translated into the idea of a just society where no one imposes his or her vision in an absolute way.

We can see how rational principles not only govern Nicholas de Cusa's stories, but, in our invented utopian society (Lumen), they also constitute the central axis around which the entire social order is organised. In this idealised society, the values of reason and justice are systematically applied to all aspects of everyday life, from political decision-making to economic and social structure.

In our utopia, rationality not only guides individual thinking, but becomes the organising principle of the community. As in the works of Cusa, where the search for universal harmony is key, in our society collective decisions are based on a rational understanding of the needs and desires of individuals. Every action and every policy is based on a logical analysis that seeks to balance personal interests with the collective welfare, following the idea that justice is the perfect balance between all components of society.

The social structure of this utopia reflects the Cusa’s vision of unity in diversity: decisions are made that take into account the multiple voices of society, optimising resources and ensuring that all members receive what they need to reach their potential.

Cusa's (1440)<ref name=":2" /> ''Docta Ignorantia'', which underlines the limitation of human knowledge, is also reflected in our utopian society. Instead of claiming to possess absolute truth, an attitude of openness and intellectual humility is encouraged, in which individuals recognise the limitations of their understanding and constantly seek dialogue and collective improvement. In this context, education does not only pursue the path of acquiring knowledge, but wants the population to be able to think and reflect critically. In this way, the aim is to ensure that decisions are taken with care and taking into account all possible variables that can influence the society as a whole.

Moreover, in Lumen, all citizens have equal access to information and participation, helping to reduce power inequalities and ensuring that everyone can contribute to creating a common good for all.

The rational principles that guide our society come not only from the philosophical ideas of Nicholas de Cusa, but are also part of a system that ensures that justice, equality and reason are not just abstract ideas, but real principles that underpin the social order. Thus, in this ideal world, the decisions and organisation of society are designed to improve the lives of all people, creating a more just and balanced community.

Leaving aside the similarities with historical utopia, we want to compare it with dystopias such as Huxley's (2006)<ref name=":0" /> ''Brave New World'' and Deleuze's (1992)<ref name=":1">Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. ''October, 59'', 3–7.</ref> ''Control society.''

Comparing the three societies, we clearly see the differences in the way power and social control are organised, as well as collective well-being. Each of these societies presents a different vision of how technology and social structures influence people's lives, but they all have very different ideas about control, freedom and happiness.

In Huxley's (2006)<ref name=":0" /> ''Brave New World'', social control is totalitarian and carried out in subtle ways. In this world, in order not to question the totalitarian system, they use genetic manipulation (explicitly a drug called soma), to ensure that people are happy in their daily lives. That’s why happiness is artificial, and deep human emotions, such as love or frustration, are eliminated.

On the other hand, in Deleuze's (1992)<ref name=":1" /> ''control society'', control is less obvious: instead of direct control over people, power is dispersed through technology. These systems allow individuals' decisions to be manipulated in a subtle way, making them feel a false freedom, and making manipulation easier.

In Lumen, the difference is clear. Here there is no constant control or manipulation. Society is based on the '''active participation''' of people, who have the power to influence collective decisions. People are '''autonomous''' and not conditioned by external forces. Instead of being constantly monitored or manipulated by technology, citizens have equal access to information, allowing them to make conscious and responsible decisions. Institutional transparency is also achieved in this way. The society is '''democratically''' organised, which means that everyone in Lumen can actively participate in the creation of the common good and in decision-making. Their voices are heard.

When we talk about '''freedom''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006)<ref name=":0" /> there is no real freedom. People cannot choose their destiny, as everything is predetermined by the system. In ''The Control Society'' (Deleuze, 1992)<ref name=":1" />, although people believe they are free, in reality their freedom is limited by the invisible influences of data and technological systems. Freedom appears to be present, but in reality it is manipulated by the systems that control information. In our utopia, freedom is real. Individuals have the ability to make decisions without being conditioned by external forces. '''Individual autonomy''' is respected, and collective decisions are made fairly and democratically, ensuring that everyone can influence the organisation of society.

Finally, as for '''collective well-being''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006)<ref name=":0" /> it is achieved through uniformity and total control. Although the society appears stable and happy, in reality it is superficial, as everyone must conform and has no room for suffering or diversity of emotions. Justice in this society is focused on maintaining order, regardless of the human costs. In Deleuze's (2006)<ref name=":1" /> ''control society'', welfare is also efficiently managed, but again it is conditioned by technological manipulation. Although there appears to be a collective welfare, in reality it is based on the management of individuals through their data. In Lumen, collective welfare is achieved through '''equity and social justice'''. Everyone has access to the resources necessary to develop their potential, and decisions are made for the common good, always respecting the autonomy of each person.

== CONCLUSION ==
In short, the main similarity and difference lies in what is meant by collective welfare in our history and the idea of working towards the betterment of society as a whole (as we accept people's discontent and improve for it) and not fight against the people.

Therefore, our more modern, progressive understanding of collective welfare focuses on fighting for and with the people, actively listening to their concerns and making changes to create a better and more fair society.

We cannot talk about collective welfare without talking about a flexible, fair and just society, ideas that we have seen through this practical example are interdependent. A fair and just society is about creating opportunities for everyone regardless of their background. But to get to that point, it is important to pay attention to policy-making. There will be no opportunities if the legal system does not promote them. Society must work towards an egalitarian system where no one is left behind, and where the voices of all people are heard and considered in the decisions that shape their lives. And that is what democracy is about.

At the same time, another point we find significant is that we cannot progress without reflecting on our past, which has brought us to where we are. By acknowledging the mistakes we've made, we can learn from them and avoid repeating them. We believe that this reflection is crucial for the growth and prosperity of a society as a whole as well as on a personal level. For, if we ignore them, we run the risk of falling back into them, and thus returning to the same point we were at and trying to improve.

In short, the journey towards collective welfare involves creating a society that listens to its people, learns from its mistakes, and works continuously to ensure fairness, equality, and justice for all. Without such a commitment, we would be doomed to repeat the errors of the past. With Lumen, its governmental organisation and its inherent values that are passed on generationally, we believe we cover those aspects.

The elaboration of this work, taking up what has been said above about how it is a critique of the current society, has led us to understand the social purpose of a utopian story: to reflect on society and its lacks. Utopias and dystopias not only imagine perfect or terrifying futures, but also lead us to reflect on today's society and its problems. They function as mirrors that show us our failings and invite us to question our political structures, beliefs and lifestyles. In this sense, both utopias and dystopias are powerful tools of social critique.

Utopias, while idealising a perfect future, are deeply rooted in the social concerns of the moment. They are often formed as direct responses to the problems facing a society. A clear example of this is Thomas More's Utopia, which dates from the 16th century. His work, ''Utopia'' (More, trad. 1516)<ref name=":3" />, reflects a strong desire to resolve the social injustices of his time, such as poverty and corruption. In the society More describes, resources are shared equally, and people work together for the common good, eliminating social divisions and inequalities. It is not only an idealised vision of the future, but also a critique of the social and political structures of Renaissance Europe, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, while the majority suffered the consequences of an unfair and inequitable system.

Today, contemporary utopias (which would include our own) follow this same pattern, but address more contemporary social and environmental problems, such as the growing economic inequality, racial discrimination and extreme poverty. Modern utopias tend to focus on the creation of a just and equitable world, in which all people have access to essential resources such as education, healthcare and decent work. In this way, contemporary utopias are not only dreams of perfection, but also responses to global challenges we face today, offering alternatives for a more sustainable and fair future.

Despite their idealistic character, utopias also serve as a reflection of the problems of current systems. They show us what we could achieve by working in synergy and as a team, with basic values such as equity and justice. At the same time, they warn of the difficulties inherent in realising a perfect society, which is far from an easy process. This is where dystopias come into play, serving as a counterpoint and warning of the dangers of inaction.

Dystopias do not present us with desirable futures, but with pessimistic ones. They show us what might happen if we fail to address the problems of the present effectively, and if our aspirations for social justice and progress drift towards authoritarianism, total control or dehumanisation. Dystopias, rather than offering a solution, function as social warnings. They show us futures where the social and political problems we face today, such as oppression, discrimination and inequality, have been exacerbated to unsustainable limits.

This relationship between utopia and dystopia, without being opposed to each other, are tools that lead us to question our reality and the choices we make as a society. If we are not focused and critical about this, we run the risk of repeating past mistakes, sacrificing freedom and diversity in pursuit of an impossible perfection. However, if we recognise and learn from history, we can build a more just world and society, where there is no oppression. In this way, utopias and dystopias remind us of the great value and importance of reflecting on the future we want to reach as a society, without losing sight of the risks of excessive power and lack of autonomy.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==

Draft:Lumen

2025-01-28T22:46:58Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES */

Article prepared by: [[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]], [[User:Maider Acedo López]] and [[User:Izaro Belloso]].

== OUR OWN UTOPIA STORY ==
In the distant age of harmony, long before man forgot the principles of equity, there was a place where dreams of equality, liberty and fraternity were not just abstract ideals, but a palpable reality. That place was called Lumen, a city that knew no darkness, neither physical nor moral, as its inhabitants, guided by deep principles of cooperation, love and justice, lived in perfect balance.

Lumen was no ordinary city, it was the product of years of ethical evolution, a civilisation that, after many falls and rebuildings, had come to understand the importance of living without distinction. There was no poverty or wealth; hunger had been eradicated long before the new generations were born. People were not defined by money, power or lineage; they were defined by their ability to share, listen and contribute to collective well-being.

The creation of Lumen had originated centuries ago, in a time of great divisions. The ancient inhabitants of the world lived in societies where gold, power and influence dictated the fate of people. Starvation and inequality were common, and wars over resources were frequent. But a small group of visionaries began to work on a revolutionary idea: if all human beings had access to the same things and no one was above another, what would the world be like?

Over time, this group managed to build Lumen, a city that functioned on a fundamental principle: ‘The welfare of all is the welfare of one’.

Lumen is situated in the center of Solaria, a vast area known for its beautiful, rich landscapes and warm climate. The city is situated at the merging of two significant rivers that flow down from the highlands, surrounded by vast deserts and breathtaking mountain ranges. These rivers, which converge near the city, provide a steady water supply and contribute to the city’s agricultural abundance. The position of Lumen allows it to maintain a strategic advantage, offering access to both the natural resources from the mountains and the fertile lands of the river valleys.

The city’s geolocation places it in a zone of moderate elevation, ensuring a balance between the extremes of high-altitude climates and the harshness of the low desert plains. The surrounding hills provide a natural buffer against harsh winds, creating a microclimate that promotes year-round growth of plants, trees, and crops. The area is sheltered enough to encourage the flourishing of both urban and natural ecosystems, making it a haven for biodiversity. The nearby mountains also serve as a spiritual symbol, as they stand tall on the horizon, embodying the aspirations of Lumen’s citizens for stability and endurance.

Lumen’s position between the desert and mountain ranges also ensures that it remains somewhat isolated from the surrounding cities, which gives it a unique cultural and political identity. This geographical separation allows Lumen to maintain its ideals of peace, harmony, and justice without much external influence. However, it is not completely isolated from the rest of Solaria, as the city is connected to nearby areas by well-maintained roads and bridges, facilitating transit, trade, and cultural exchange. These relationships ensure that Lumen's residents stay aware and involved with the outside world by promoting a balance between independence and openness to outside influences.

The city is located strategically next to the Kirk satellite, an advanced technological device that circles over Lumen. In addition to being a representation of Lumen's link to the wider universe, this satellite also serves a functional purpose by controlling the city's technological and communications system. The satellite’s influence reaches down into the city, maintaining a constant connection with other regions and reinforcing Lumen’s ideal of interconnectedness. This unique positioning of Lumen at the confluence of natural beauty, strategic isolation, and technological advancement shapes its identity and guides the lives of its people.

The city of Lumen is a symbol of the delicate balance between human innovation and nature. Its architecture blends perfectly with its surroundings, a structure built on the principles of justice, harmony and peace.

Smooth stones in the shape of river stones, transparent glass walls that reflect the vast sky, and wood from trees carefully grown to blend in with the environment are some of the materials used to construct the buildings in Lumen. The open and flowing design of the buildings, often with curved lines that mimic the gentle flow of nature, and their green, plant-filled roofs help to create a sense of continuity between the natural and artificial worlds.

The town's central square, where the traditional festivities are held, is large and open, lined with large circular stone pavers that resemble ripples in a pond, symbolising the spread of peaceful influence. Trees, their branches arching gracefully, provide shade and shelter, and fountains of clear, flowing water add to the tranquil atmosphere. In the distance, the majestic Kirk satellite can be seen in the sky, a symbol of the city’s connection to the cosmos and a reminder of the importance of balance between the Earth and the stars.

The natural surroundings of Lumen are as harmonious as the city itself. Large fields of golden grass stretch out in every direction, blowing in the breeze, while gently rounded hills are dotted with colourful wildflowers that change with the seasons. Forests of tall, slim trees, their trunks pale and almost luminous, offer peaceful groves where citizens come to meditate, find comfort or simply enjoy the quiet beauty of nature. These groves, carefully protected, are sacred spaces where harmony is sought through tranquillity and reflection.

Another distinctive aspect of Lumen's geography are its rivers, which flow through the city like veins. The waters are crystal clear, flowing steadily but slowly, and never losing their serenity. These rivers are crossed by little bridges with decorative railings that link different areas of the city and highlight the notion that even the smallest acts of collaboration may bring people together.

In this peaceful world, every building, every tree, and every river seems to have been placed with a purpose, creating a city that is both a physical and philosophical representation of harmony and balance.

In Lumen, there was no distinction between rich and poor. Social classes had long since been eradicated. Every inhabitant, from the youngest to the oldest, had access to the same resources: education, health, food and welfare. The work system was different from the old cities. Here, work was not an obligation to survive, but a voluntary activity aimed at contributing to the common good. There was no economic pressure, and people chose to do what they were passionate about. Workers, scientists, artists and philosophers shared their wisdom and skills, working side by side for a common goal.

Advanced technology, the result of shared effort, allowed basic needs to be met automatically. Energy was renewable, obtained from natural sources such as wind, sun and water. The houses were self-sufficient, built with recycled and biocompatible materials. Instead of being simple residences, the homes were small ecosystems where inhabitants grew their own food and recycled everything they used.

Access to education was universal and free. From an early age, children learned about human history, its mistakes and achievements, and how to work together to create a better future. Teaching was not aimed at gaining qualifications or skills to compete, but at strengthening character, empathy and collaboration.

People in this city reside in cooperative communities known as "support clusters," where they share resources and duties. In addition to guiding legislation, the principles of justice, peace, and harmony serve as the cornerstone of human interactions. The idea of home transcends biological relationships, and families come in a variety of forms. Children are raised in settings where their education and general well-being are attended to by the entire community in addition to their parents.

In this city, there was a very special group of friends. Among them were Elios, Lira and Tarin. Elios was a young man with the unique ability to communicate with the elements of nature. Since childhood he had developed a deep connection with water, wind and earth. He could make forests grow, calm storms and purify rivers. His gift made him the protector of Lumen's ecosystems, teaching everyone to live in symbiosis with their environment. For him, harmony was essential, as he understood that the balance between man and nature was the basis of all progress. Alongside him was his great friend Lira, an expert mediator, born in the city of Serenity, where disputes between peoples were always resolved through dialogue and understanding. Her ability to listen and understand others made her a respected leader who never resorted to violence or coercion. Lira organised peace circles where all voices were heard, creating solutions that would benefit all, without anyone being oppressed or ignored. Finally, the third component of the trio of friends was Tarin, a former judge and defender of fairness. His task was not only to judge, but also to teach people about the importance of justice in a balanced society. With his firm but fair perspective, he had abolished all kinds of discrimination and corruption in Lumen. He understood that justice was not only about punishing injustices but securing that all inhabitants had the same access to resources and opportunities, without any distinctions.

The three friends shared a common neighborhood in Lumen, Lakua, where they devoted their days to ensuring Lumen's justice, harmony, and peace. They enjoyed going to the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies in their spare time, where all citizens were valued and had a say in the decision-making process, which was based on agreement. The population met once a month through the Open Assemblies to talk about significant concerns, always looking for peaceful and inclusive solutions. Lumen arranged its governmental structure as follows:

Lumen's governmental structure was based on a council composed of representatives from different sectors of society: workers, educators, scientists, artists, elders and youth. This council, known as the Harmony Council, was responsible for making important decisions affecting the community. Council members were not elected by popular vote, but were selected for their commitment to Lumen's core values and their ability to mediate and make fair decisions.

Major decisions were made at the Open Assembly, a democratic forum where all citizens of Lumen had the right to make proposals, debate and vote on matters of collective interest. The Assembly was held every month, and decisions were taken by consensus. The active participation of citizens was crucial, as every voice was heard and consensus was reached rather than a majority imposing its will.

To ensure that government decisions were fair and equitable, Lumen relied on a group of mediators, known as the ‘Mediators of Harmony’. These individuals were selected for their ability to remain calm and seek peaceful solutions to disputes or conflicts. They acted as facilitators in the Open Assembly and in government decisions, ensuring that solutions were not only practical, but also reflected the values of peace, equity and justice.

In addition to the Open Assembly, Lumen was organised into small Local Action Circles, which are community groups responsible for making decisions on day-to-day and local issues, such as the distribution of resources, the organisation of community events and the resolution of minor conflicts. These circles allowed for greater autonomy and participation of citizens in local decision-making, promoting a sense of responsibility and ownership.

A Consensus System was developed in Lumen. Decisions were not taken by simple majority, but by a consensus. This meant that all members of the community had to reach a common agreement before an important decision was taken. This approach was intended to ensure that all voices were heard and that the decisions reflected the collective interest, avoiding the imposition of one party's will on another. If consensus could not be reached, further discussions and deliberations were held until a solution which everyone was satisfied with was reached.

The three boys loved being part of these Assemblies and understanding the inside functioning of Lumen. All three were very happy to belong to this society and were sure that nothing would ever break the harmony of Lumen, as they were its guardians. They lived happily with their families, or what in Lumen is understood as family. In this city the notion of family extends beyond blood ties. Citizens understand that the raising and education of children is not only the responsibility of the biological parents, but of the whole community. Therefore, children grow up surrounded by a wide circle of supportive and guiding adults, from grandparents to neighbours, creating a sense of collective belonging. To reinforce this loyalty to your family, every year the ‘Ritual of the Stones’ was celebrated. It was customary for all members of the family—biological or adoptive—to get together to discuss the past year, share achievements and challenges, and reinforce the relationships that unite them. Small tokens known as "Commitment Stones," which symbolized each family member's dedication to the group's overall welfare, were presented during the event. On their tenth birthday, the youngest family member was required to make this offering. It was Elios' younger brother's turn this year.

Elios was very excited about this fact, he had been waiting for this moment for years. For him, his little brother was everything he had, he raised him as if he was his own son. He taught him everything he needed to know about peace, harmony and love for others and he couldn't wait for his brother to do the sacred ritual. He remembered when it was his turn to do it, and he would never forget the moment he handed the stone to his grandfather. He wanted the experience for his brother to be the same or even better. Moreover, this year it would be even more special because the ritual would take place on the same day as The Feast of Harmony, Lumen's National Holiday, which he and his friends had the honour of preparing this year.

While the preparations for the party were keeping the guardians busy, a new group of kids arrived in town. They passed unnoticed among the good citizens of Lumen who, engrossed in the harmony and peace, did not realise the danger they were about to face. These boys were The Defiant. The members of the group were called Xera, Varys and Korra. These kids were lost kids, kids who after challenging the harmony and peace of other cities, were banished from them and forced to wander in the desert that separated the different cities. Forgotten and abandoned by their families, for them there was no such thing as a perfect society. Harmony, peace and justice seemed to them like a fantasy story and so, in their words, they wanted to open people's eyes, to make them realise that the government was controlling them by offering them a false sense of power. In the narrator's words, they wanted to destroy the systems from within so that no one else could live in harmony, peace and justice.

The group included Xera, the leader of the Defiant, Varys, an expert strategist, and Korra, the vigilante. All three boys hailed from the city of Cambria. They believed that the stability of Solaria had suffocated progress. Too much harmony had stopped innovation and personal growth. They believed that ambition and competition were necessary for humanity to advance. To this end, they had a well-organised plan to spread doubts among the people of Lumen. With this, they would gradually make the people acknowledge the reality and destroy the ‘perfect’ system. They would start this plan at the Harmony Party, where the whole city would gather.

The big day arrived. Elios, Lira and Tarin were preparing for the two most important celebrations of the year. They had worked hard to keep Lumen's values intact this year and the city had decided to honour them at the Harmony Festival as well. Thrilled, happy and excited, they arrived at the central square of the city where everyone was waiting for them. They greeted everyone and then the dancing, singing and games began. Food and drink were not to be missed either.

Meanwhile, the Defiant also arrived at the party. Once there, they split up and began their plan. During the previous days, the boys had been leaving a series of speeches and secret propaganda in the mailboxes of certain people they had already studied, people who had already shown a certain dissatisfaction with the system. They were the first to be approached by the Defiant.

Xera argued that the absence of competition and constant cooperation in Lumen had led to a lazy and conformist society, where true ambition and the desire to improve had disappeared. Varys, for the other hand, spread the idea that the peace experienced in Lumen was an illusion.Society had discovered ways to avoid issues rather than face conflict and disagreements directly, which had only resulted in a fragile and superficial peace.

Korra, finally, introduced the notion that Lumen had made people equal, but at the cost of their authenticity and individual growth. He argued that justice had established a system where everyone was treated equally, but people's true abilities and talents were not sufficiently valued. Instead of a world where differences were celebrated, Lumen had created a culture of mediocrity, where no one person stood out more than another. She also promoted a new idea, the exaltation of differences, where individual achievements were to be visibly rewarded, promoting a system that recognised the exceptional abilities of each individual.

In doing so, Xera's followers began to organise secret activities that challenged the peaceful norms of Lumen, engaging in clandestine games and competitions that destabilised the harmonious coexistence. Varys convinced several mediators of harmony that true peace would only be achieved when citizens confronted their differences and fought openly for their beliefs. Under this influence, small tensions began to emerge between communities that had never before challenged each other.

The impact of The Defiant was soon felt. The communities of Lumen began to experience a gradual breakdown of harmony. Xera's secret competitive games caused cooperative relationships to become tense. The mistrust created by Varys led to divisions between different groups that, prior to this influence, had been united in peace. And Korra's ideas of blended inequality began to gain support among those who felt their talents were not being recognised.

In the face of the tremendous commotion, certain sectors of society were very concerned about the danger to the values of Lumen. They brought together in an Open Assembly those responsible for maintaining the balance of Lumen, among them were our guardians. When it was Elios' turn to speak, he warned that it was normal that sometimes people would have different ideas but that they did not have to worry about anything, as the citizens of Lumen were wise and would know how to return to the path of balance. This reassured the mediators of harmony, but without much confidence, they put the three guardians in charge of restoring the balance.

Over the months, far from decreasing, the number of people who began to take a critical view of the Lumen system increased. It came to the point where a new movement contrary to the ideals of the city of Lumen, the Individual Freedom Movement, gained power, including several mediators of harmony in its ranks. At the Open Assembly in June 2300, they presented their thoughts to the astonished looks of the guardians. Among their thoughts were the creation of spaces where conflict is welcomed and managed openly, without the need for hiding or avoiding it. Leaders like Korra pushed this ideology, promoting a vision where people could have more freedom to pursue their own interests without being so constrained by the collective needs of society.

Lumen became divided as a result of this movement, with some members of the population standing up for a greater individual freedom at the expense of the wider community. The belief that harmony could only exist if everyone made sacrifices for the common good was called into question when the conflicts between individual rights and the general welfare turned into a philosophical and political dispute.

One of the guards, Lira, was among the group of people who started raising concerns. She had dedicated her entire life to preserving the principles that her community had taught her, fighting for harmony and communication in which all people were treated with respect and felt listened. Looking at this new situation, she really began to think about new ideas that she had never thought about before. Lira began to reflect on the need for a peace that is not just based on the absence of conflict, but on true equity and the inclusion of all voices, even those that challenge the status quo. In her moments of meditation, she asked: ‘Is harmony really possible if the dissonant voices are never heard, if the deep problems of society are ignored for the sake of apparent unity? Even if she already felt this way, she kept it from her friends.

Still feeling strange, Lira turned to the call of her friends, the guardians, who, faced with the tremendous commotion and not knowing what to do, turned to Thalia, the guardian of knowledge, Lumen's mentor and advisor. She was a wise old woman, known for her vast understanding of Lumen's history and her ability to teach the younger generation. She was one of the first to help create the structure of the society, and her role had always been to ensure that the values of harmony, peace and justice were not forgotten over time. Although her wisdom was unimaginable, her age and her emotional distance from the youth of Lumen sometimes made her feel that her vision was outdated. She often faced uncertainty as to whether society had moved too far forward and away from its original principles.

The guardians explained to Thalia everything that had happened in the last few months. Unlike the horrified and worried expressions of the guardians, she was not surprised at all. In her 103 years, it was not the first time she had seen something like this. She was well aware that maintaining the values of harmony, peace and justice and having them work perfectly within a society was not easy. She had seen it herself on other occasions with other groups of Defiant who came to the city with the desire to wreak havoc. She explained to them past situations and how they had often tried to disrupt the harmony of things. A talk that served to reinforce Lira's vision above all, who again reminded them of the importance of keeping core values alive. Elder Thalia's teachings from the past illuminated the path of the guardians, who found solutions to deal with the ‘chaos’ of the challengers.

They knew that each of the antagonists represented a side of the challenges associated with any ideal society, but they also understood that they had to act with caution, because a direct confrontation could destroy what Lumen had built. The guardians held an assembly, this time a private one, of the founding members of the Individual Freedom Movement. There, the guardians spoke to the three Defiant in an attempt to bring them to their senses.

Elios explained to Xera the real meaning of competition by using his talent to harmonize nature. He demonstrated to her how uncontrolled ambition, lacking teamwork and respect for one another, might ruin the social peace. However, Lira clarified that genuine peace resulted from the fair and equitable resolution of conflicts rather than their absence. She showed how conflict does not have to be destructive if it is approached with compassion and open communication. Finally, Tarin showed that, while individual differences are important, true justice is not about rewarding some over others, but about ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities to develop. He explained that equality did not mean homogeneity, but the creation of a system where each individual could reach their full potential, regardless of their natural abilities or talents.

After debating for 3 and a half days, the members of the Individual Freedom Movement and the guardians decided to set a day for a new Open Assembly, where all these issues would be debated and discussed by the people. Elios, together with Xera, stood at the central stand where everyone could listen to them. Elios was very nervous, as this day could dictate the future of his beloved city. He looked down and saw that all his family and community were there, waiting to see what would happen. But what calmed him the most, and at the same time filled him with strength, was to see his little brother. Are the values he grew up with really ideal and perfect, or did he have to be open to listen to certain changes that could make the lives of the citizens of Lumen better? The silent doubt was beginning to creep into him.

The assembly discussed a number of challenges that Lumen would have to face in the future. Among them, the challenge of maintaining peace without losing resilience, inequality in the distribution of resources or the implementation of education in a non-conflict society. The proposal for the latter was made by Vela, an elderly mediator who specialised in resolving disputes between the inhabitants of Lumen, from family disagreements to small community disputes. Her gift for understanding other people's emotions made her an invaluable resource for keeping the peace. However, she faced an internal crisis. As Lumen's society became more homogeneous and stable, she began to wonder if her role was less important. She often felt frustrated that conflicts had been reduced to minor issues and was afraid that her ability was not as relevant as before. This reflected the existential dilemmas that can arise in a society where conflict seems to have disappeared. This led to a question in the Assembly as to whether peace is more than simply the absence of disputes.

At the end of the debate, there was a breath of fresh air in the air. As they opened the door of the Assembly and stepped back out onto the street, the light from the Kirk satellite shone brightly overhead, creating a welcoming, bright and cheerful atmosphere for the inhabitants. New beginnings and processes of change were on the horizon for these citizens.

It had been decided to go for a change, a new society but based on the old fundamental values on which Lumen had been built. Finally, the Harmony Council decided, by consensus, to open this space for debate, allowing the established norms to be questioned. It was the first step towards a society that, although still perfect in its form, now allows itself to be constantly questioned and transformed. Through this process of reflection and change, Solaria began to understand that true harmony is not a static state, but a continuous process of learning and growth. Citizens no longer feared disagreements, but saw them as opportunities to improve their society.

Lumen reveals an uncomfortable truth: even in a world that seems perfect, there are always elements of doubt, conflict and discontent. Peace, harmony and justice are noble ideals, but the characters show us that their implementation is never perfect or easy. The doubts of Lira, Elios and Vela open a window into reflection on their own beliefs: is peace true if disagreement is not allowed? Is justice a concept that is only achieved in conformity, or is it in the constant struggle for the common good, even if this means confronting ourselves and others? Are we willing to challenge our beliefs and the status quo for a better future?

In Solaria, as in the real world, peace and justice are not something that is achieved once and forever. They are principles that must be constantly defended and challenged, so that they remain real and not just a comfortable illusion.

In the end, the guardians managed to convince the Defiant that instead of sowing mistrust, Solaria should face challenges collectively, learning from their differences rather than confronting them. They promised that together, they would look for ways to encourage innovation without losing balance with the environment and cooperation among citizens. The Defiant accepted and became full citizens of Lumen. They stopped wandering the deserts in search of creating chaos, because they understood that being part of a community and working and fighting for it was much more fulfilling and much happier.

From that day on, the day of The Feast of Harmony changed the date to the day when Lumen accepted that their principles of harmony, peace and justice could have different meanings and that discussing them was indispensable to advance them and not to lose them.

== LUMEN VS DIFFERENT HISTORICAL UTOPIAS AND DYSTOPIAS ==
A story is a fiction about something we would like to happen, a fantasy about a world without social classes, social justice, where people simply do not have to survive but to live.

'''Utopia,''' in this way, is understood as two things: firstly, the ‘desirable plan, project, doctrine or system that seems very difficult to realise’ and secondly, the ‘imaginative representation of a future society with characteristics that favour the human good’, that is, a society so perfect and idealised that it is practically impossible to reach it (Real Academia Española, n.d.)<ref>Real Academia Española. (n.d.). ''Utopía''. En Diccionario de la lengua española (23rd ed.). Retrieved from [https://dle.rae.es/utop%C3%ADa]</ref>.

A '''dystopia''' or anti-utopia is a fictional society that is undesirable in itself. The term, derived from Greek, was created by John Stuart Mill in the late 19th century as a direct antonym of utopia, which in turn was coined by St Thomas More and is the title of his best-known work, published in 1516, in which he describes a model for an ideal society with minimal levels of crime, violence and poverty (Wikipedia contributors, 2024a)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024a, December 19). Dystopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 12:01, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dystopia&oldid=1263860704]</ref>.

Despite being a history of our own, utopias and dystopias are concepts that have a long history. Authors such as Plato, in ''The Republic'' (ca. 380 BC), describe ideal societies, in this case, governed by philosopher-kings, where justice and social harmony are the fundamental pillars. Thomas More, in his work ''Utopia'' (1516), gives his name to the genre by imagining an island with a perfect political and social system, which indirectly criticises the problems of Renaissance Europe. Francis Bacon, for his part, in ''The New Atlantis'' (1627)<ref>Bacon, F. (1627). ''New Atlantis''. In W. Rawley (Ed.), ''Sylva Sylvarum: Or a Natural History''. London: Printed by J. H. for William Lee.</ref>, presents an ideal society based on scientific knowledge and collaboration for human progress. Later, Edward Bellamy, in ''Looking Backwards: 2000-1887'' (1888)<ref>Bellamy, E. (1888). ''Mirando hacia atrás: 2000-1887''. Ediciones Akal (originally published by Ticknor & Company).</ref>, envisions a socialist future where economic and social inequalities have been eliminated.

In the field of dystopias, authors such as George Orwell, with ''1984'' (1949), make a fierce criticism of totalitarianism, showing a world of constant surveillance and manipulation of thought. Aldous Huxley, in ''Brave New World'' (1932)<ref name=":0">Huxley, A. (2006). ''Brave new world'' (Reprint edition). Harper Perennial Modern Classics. (Original work published 1932).</ref>, posits a technocratic dystopia where pleasure and mass consumption replace individual freedom. Ray Bradbury, with ''Fahrenheit 451'' (1953)<ref>Bradbury, R. (1953). ''Fahrenheit 451''. Ballantine Books.</ref>, describes a society in which books are banned, and ignorance and superficial entertainment are used as tools of control. Margaret Atwood, in ''The Handmaid's Tale'' (1985)<ref>Atwood, M. (1985). ''El cuento de la criada''. McClelland & Stewart.</ref>, creates a theocratic and misogynistic dystopia where women are deprived of fundamental rights.

Yevgeny Zamiatin, author of ''We'' (1920)<ref>Zamiatin, Y. (1920). ''We''. E. P. Dutton (original work published 1924).</ref>, conceives one of the first modern dystopias, set in a world where individuality is completely subordinated to the state. On the other hand, Philip K. Dick, in ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'' (1968)<ref>Dick, P. K. (1968). ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?''. Doubleday.</ref>, explores a dystopian future in which the boundaries between humans and machines are blurred, questioning concepts such as identity and humanity.

Authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin, in ''The Dispossessed'' (1974)<ref>Le Guin, U. K. (1974). ''The Dispossessed.'' Harper & Row.</ref>, combines both approaches by narrating the story of two opposing worlds: one capitalist and the other anarchist, examining both utopian ideals and their limits. H.G. Wells, too, with ''A Modern Utopia'' (1905)<ref>Wells, H. G. (1905). ''A Modern Utopia''. Chapman and Hall.</ref>, examines how a utopia could work in practice, although he also wrote dystopias such as ''The Time Machine'' (1895).

These works, by both utopian and dystopian authors, have not only defined their respective genres, but have also profoundly influenced how we imagine, question and critique human societies.

There has been an evolution of these same terms, adapting to the advances and needs of the society of the moment. They all have in common that the main basis is a critique of the society of the moment. We could even consider it an escape from it, a way of coping with it. Thanks to this evolution, the classification of utopian societies would be as follows: political and historical utopia, economic utopia, technological utopia, ecological utopia and religious or spiritual utopia (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024b, October 22). Utopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:54, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&oldid=1252700236]</ref>.

Although following the classification of utopias underlying the ideals of the Information Society, discussed in the presentation of the course, there are six families of utopias: Computable Language, Computable Thought, Unlimited Availability of Knowledge, Computable Social Order (Normalization), Communication without borders, and Security vs Trust of the Information Society.

In this case, our history is framed within the concept of ''Computable Social Order'', as it idealises a just, egalitarian and equitable society. This framework allows for a more systematic analysis of our history with historical utopias and dystopias, facilitating the identification of common patterns and significant differences in how these visions of the future have been conceived.

Nicholas de Cusa (1401-1464), a German Renaissance philosopher, theologian and mathematician, did not explicitly propose a utopia in the modern sense of the term, but his ideas can be interpreted as the foundations of a ‘computable social order’ in certain respects (Wikipedia contributors, 2024c)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024c, September 7). Nicholas of Cusa. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:53, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_of_Cusa&oldid=1244461138]</ref>. His thought was based on principles of harmony, equality and the search for an underlying unity in diversity, ideas that could be related to an ideal society regulated by rational principles. In his work ''De Concordantia Catholica'', Nicholas de Cusa (1433)<ref>English translation in ''De concordantia catholica (The Catholic Concordance)'', tr. P Sigmund, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, (Cambridge: CUP, 1991).</ref> advocates the active participation of communities in government, proposing a model where decisions are made collectively. This idea is consistent with our decision-making, reminding us of the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies where the voice of every citizen is important, where consensus is sought, because following Cusa (1440)<ref name=":2">English translation in Bond, H. Lawrence (ed.), ''Nicholas of Cusa: Selected Spiritual Writings'', Classics of Western Spirituality, (New York: Paulist Press, 1997).</ref> in his work ''De Docta Ignorantia'', the recognition of universal ‘ignorance’ fosters intellectual equality among human beings, which can be translated into the idea of a just society where no one imposes his or her vision in an absolute way.

We can see how rational principles not only govern Nicholas de Cusa's stories, but, in our invented utopian society (Lumen), they also constitute the central axis around which the entire social order is organised. In this idealised society, the values of reason and justice are systematically applied to all aspects of everyday life, from political decision-making to economic and social structure.

In our utopia, rationality not only guides individual thinking, but becomes the organising principle of the community. As in the works of Cusa, where the search for universal harmony is key, in our society collective decisions are based on a rational understanding of the needs and desires of individuals. Every action and every policy is based on a logical analysis that seeks to balance personal interests with the collective welfare, following the idea that justice is the perfect balance between all components of society.

The social structure of this utopia reflects the Cusa’s vision of unity in diversity: decisions are made that take into account the multiple voices of society, optimising resources and ensuring that all members receive what they need to reach their potential.

Cusa's (1440)<ref name=":2" /> ''Docta Ignorantia'', which underlines the limitation of human knowledge, is also reflected in our utopian society. Instead of claiming to possess absolute truth, an attitude of openness and intellectual humility is encouraged, in which individuals recognise the limitations of their understanding and constantly seek dialogue and collective improvement. In this context, education focuses not only on the acquisition of knowledge, but on the development of critical and reflective capacity, ensuring that decisions are made with a full awareness of their potential impact on society as a whole.

Moreover, in Lumen, all citizens have equal access to information and participation, helping to reduce power inequalities and ensuring that everyone can contribute to creating a common good for all.

The rational principles that guide our society come not only from the philosophical ideas of Nicholas de Cusa, but are also part of a system that ensures that justice, equality and reason are not just abstract ideas, but real principles that underpin the social order. Thus, in this ideal world, the decisions and organisation of society are designed to improve the lives of all people, creating a more just and balanced community.

Leaving aside the similarities with historical utopia, we want to compare it with dystopias such as Huxley's (2006)<ref name=":0" /> ''Brave New World'' and Deleuze's (1992)<ref name=":1">Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. ''October, 59'', 3–7.</ref> ''Control society.''

Comparing the three societies, we clearly see the differences in the way power and social control are organised, as well as collective well-being. Each of these societies presents a different vision of how technology and social structures influence people's lives, but they all have very different ideas about control, freedom and happiness.

In Huxley's (2006)<ref name=":0" /> ''Brave New World'', social control is totalitarian and carried out in subtle ways. People are conditioned from birth to fit into a pre-established place in society. In this world, there is no freedom to question the system, as genetic manipulation and the use of a drug called soma ensure that everyone is happy with their role. Happiness is guaranteed, but it is artificial, and deep human emotions, such as love or frustration, are eliminated. On the other hand, in Deleuze's (1992)<ref name=":1" /> ''control society'', control is less obvious but more extensive. Instead of direct control over people, power is dispersed through technology and data collection. Individuals' decisions are constantly influenced, but in ways they do not notice, creating an illusion of freedom. In this way, although individuals believe they are in control of their lives, in reality they are being manipulated by economic and technological systems.

In Lumen, the difference is clear. Here there is no constant control or manipulation. Society is based on the '''active participation''' of people, who have the power to influence collective decisions. People are '''autonomous''' and not conditioned by external forces. Instead of being constantly watched or manipulated by technology, citizens have equal access to '''information''', enabling them to make conscious and responsible decisions. Society is organised '''democratically''', where everyone can actively influence the creation of the common good.

When we talk about '''freedom''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006)<ref name=":0" /> there is no real freedom. People cannot choose their destiny, as everything is predetermined by the system. In ''The Control Society'' (Deleuze, 1992)<ref name=":1" />, although people believe they are free, in reality their freedom is limited by the invisible influences of data and technological systems. Freedom appears to be present, but in reality it is manipulated by the systems that control information. In our utopia, freedom is real. Individuals have the ability to make decisions without being conditioned by external forces. '''Individual autonomy''' is respected, and collective decisions are made fairly and democratically, ensuring that everyone can influence the organisation of society.

Finally, as for '''collective well-being''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006)<ref name=":0" /> it is achieved through uniformity and total control. Although the society appears stable and happy, in reality it is superficial, as everyone must conform and has no room for suffering or diversity of emotions. Justice in this society is focused on maintaining order, regardless of the human costs. In Deleuze's (2006)<ref name=":1" /> ''control society'', welfare is also efficiently managed, but again it is conditioned by technological manipulation. Although there appears to be a collective welfare, in reality it is based on the management of individuals through their data. In Lumen, collective welfare is achieved through '''equity and social justice'''. Everyone has access to the resources necessary to develop their potential, and decisions are made for the common good, always respecting the autonomy of each person.

== CONCLUSION ==
In short, the main similarity and difference lies in what is meant by collective welfare in our history and the idea of working towards the betterment of society as a whole (as we accept people's discontent and improve for it) and not fight against the people. A more modern, progressive view of collective welfare focuses on fighting for and with the people, actively listening to their concerns and making changes to create a better, more just society.

When we talk about collective welfare today, it's rooted in the idea that society must be flexible, fair, and equitable. This means creating opportunities for everyone, regardless of their background, to thrive. A key aspect of this is understanding the importance of fairness and justice in policy-making. Society must work towards an egalitarian system where no one is left behind, and where the voices of all people are heard and considered in the decisions that shape their lives.

One crucial point is that we cannot progress without reflecting on our past. By acknowledging the mistakes we've made, we can learn from them and avoid repeating them. This reflection is vital for growth, whether on a personal level or in the development of society as a whole. If we ignore the lessons of history, we risk falling into the same traps that have hindered progress before.

In short, the journey towards collective welfare involves creating a society that listens to its people, learns from its mistakes, and works continuously to ensure fairness, equality, and justice for all. Without such a commitment, we would be doomed to repeat the errors of the past. With Lumen, its governmental organisation and its inherent values that are passed on generationally, we believe we cover those aspects.

The realisation of this work, taking up what has been said above about how it is a critique of today's society, has led us to learn about the social utility of a utopian story: to reflect on society and its shortcomings. Utopias and dystopias not only present us with visions of ideal or terrifying futures, but can act as mirrors that allow us to see, in a clear way, the problems and dangers inherent in our current realities. In this sense, both utopias and dystopias are powerful tools for social critique, as they invite us to question our political structures, our beliefs and our way of life.

Utopias, while idealising a perfect future, are deeply rooted in the social concerns of the moment in which they are conceived. They are often born as direct responses to the problems a society faces. A clear example of this is Thomas More's ''Utopia'', which dates from the 16th century. His work, ''Utopia'' (More, 1516), reflects a strong desire to resolve the social injustices of his time, such as poverty and corruption. In the society More describes, resources are shared equally, and people work together for the common good, eliminating social divisions and inequalities. This is not just an idealised vision of the future, but a direct critique of the social and political structures of Renaissance Europe, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, while the majority suffered the consequences of an unjust system.

Today, contemporary utopias (of which ours is one) follow this same pattern, but address more contemporary social and environmental problems, such as growing economic inequality, racial discrimination, and extreme poverty. Modern utopias often focus on creating a more just and equitable world, where all individuals have access to essential resources such as education, health and decent work. In this way, contemporary utopias are not only dreams of perfection, but also responses to the global challenges we face today, offering alternatives for a more sustainable and just future.

Despite their idealistic character, utopias also reveal the limitations of current systems. They show us what we could achieve if we work together and commit to values of fairness and justice, but they also warn us about the difficulties inherent in realising a perfect society. This is where dystopias come into play, serving as a counterpoint that warns of the dangers of inaction. Dystopias do not present us with desirable futures, but with pessimistic ones. They show us what might happen if we fail to address the problems of the present effectively, and if our aspirations for social justice and progress drift towards authoritarianism, total control or dehumanisation. Dystopias, rather than offering a solution, function as social warnings. They show us futures where the social and political problems we face today, such as oppression, discrimination and inequality, have been exacerbated to unsustainable limits.

This relationship between utopia and dystopia, far from being a contradiction, invites us to question our own realities and to reflect on the choices we make as a society. If we are not vigilant, we run the risk of falling into the same mistakes of the past, seeking perfection at the expense of our freedom and diversity. However, if we learn from the lessons of history and continue to strive for a more just society, we can prevent our ideals from becoming tools of oppression. In this way, utopias and dystopias ultimately serve as powerful reminders of the need to constantly reflect on what we want to build as a society, without losing sight of the dangers of over-centralisation of power and loss of individual autonomy.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
More, T. (1516). ''Utopia''.

Orwell, G. (1949). ''1984''.

Platón. (ca. 380 a.C.). ''La República''.

Draft:Lumen

2025-01-28T22:01:04Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES */

Article prepared by: [[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]], [[User:Maider Acedo López]] and [[User:Izaro Belloso]].

== OUR OWN UTOPIA STORY ==
In the distant age of harmony, long before man forgot the principles of equity, there was a place where dreams of equality, liberty and fraternity were not just abstract ideals, but a palpable reality. That place was called Lumen, a city that knew no darkness, neither physical nor moral, as its inhabitants, guided by deep principles of cooperation, love and justice, lived in perfect balance.

Lumen was no ordinary city, it was the product of years of ethical evolution, a civilisation that, after many falls and rebuildings, had come to understand the importance of living without distinction. There was no poverty or wealth; hunger had been eradicated long before the new generations were born. People were not defined by money, power or lineage; they were defined by their ability to share, listen and contribute to collective well-being.

The creation of Lumen had originated centuries ago, in a time of great divisions. The ancient inhabitants of the world lived in societies where gold, power and influence dictated the fate of people. Starvation and inequality were common, and wars over resources were frequent. But a small group of visionaries began to work on a revolutionary idea: if all human beings had access to the same things and no one was above another, what would the world be like?

Over time, this group managed to build Lumen, a city that functioned on a fundamental principle: ‘The welfare of all is the welfare of one’.

Lumen is situated in the center of Solaria, a vast area known for its beautiful, rich landscapes and warm climate. The city is situated at the merging of two significant rivers that flow down from the highlands, surrounded by vast deserts and breathtaking mountain ranges. These rivers, which converge near the city, provide a steady water supply and contribute to the city’s agricultural abundance. The position of Lumen allows it to maintain a strategic advantage, offering access to both the natural resources from the mountains and the fertile lands of the river valleys.

The city’s geolocation places it in a zone of moderate elevation, ensuring a balance between the extremes of high-altitude climates and the harshness of the low desert plains. The surrounding hills provide a natural buffer against harsh winds, creating a microclimate that promotes year-round growth of plants, trees, and crops. The area is sheltered enough to encourage the flourishing of both urban and natural ecosystems, making it a haven for biodiversity. The nearby mountains also serve as a spiritual symbol, as they stand tall on the horizon, embodying the aspirations of Lumen’s citizens for stability and endurance.

Lumen’s position between the desert and mountain ranges also ensures that it remains somewhat isolated from the surrounding cities, which gives it a unique cultural and political identity. This geographical separation allows Lumen to maintain its ideals of peace, harmony, and justice without much external influence. However, it is not completely isolated from the rest of Solaria, as the city is connected to nearby areas by well-maintained roads and bridges, facilitating transit, trade, and cultural exchange. These relationships ensure that Lumen's residents stay aware and involved with the outside world by promoting a balance between independence and openness to outside influences.

The city is located strategically next to the Kirk satellite, an advanced technological device that circles over Lumen. In addition to being a representation of Lumen's link to the wider universe, this satellite also serves a functional purpose by controlling the city's technological and communications system. The satellite’s influence reaches down into the city, maintaining a constant connection with other regions and reinforcing Lumen’s ideal of interconnectedness. This unique positioning of Lumen at the confluence of natural beauty, strategic isolation, and technological advancement shapes its identity and guides the lives of its people.

The city of Lumen is a symbol of the delicate balance between human innovation and nature. Its architecture blends perfectly with its surroundings, a structure built on the principles of justice, harmony and peace.

Smooth stones in the shape of river stones, transparent glass walls that reflect the vast sky, and wood from trees carefully grown to blend in with the environment are some of the materials used to construct the buildings in Lumen. The open and flowing design of the buildings, often with curved lines that mimic the gentle flow of nature, and their green, plant-filled roofs help to create a sense of continuity between the natural and artificial worlds.

The town's central square, where the traditional festivities are held, is large and open, lined with large circular stone pavers that resemble ripples in a pond, symbolising the spread of peaceful influence. Trees, their branches arching gracefully, provide shade and shelter, and fountains of clear, flowing water add to the tranquil atmosphere. In the distance, the majestic Kirk satellite can be seen in the sky, a symbol of the city’s connection to the cosmos and a reminder of the importance of balance between the Earth and the stars.

The natural surroundings of Lumen are as harmonious as the city itself. Large fields of golden grass stretch out in every direction, blowing in the breeze, while gently rounded hills are dotted with colourful wildflowers that change with the seasons. Forests of tall, slim trees, their trunks pale and almost luminous, offer peaceful groves where citizens come to meditate, find comfort or simply enjoy the quiet beauty of nature. These groves, carefully protected, are sacred spaces where harmony is sought through tranquillity and reflection.

Another distinctive aspect of Lumen's geography are its rivers, which flow through the city like veins. The waters are crystal clear, flowing steadily but slowly, and never losing their serenity. These rivers are crossed by little bridges with decorative railings that link different areas of the city and highlight the notion that even the smallest acts of collaboration may bring people together.

In this peaceful world, every building, every tree, and every river seems to have been placed with a purpose, creating a city that is both a physical and philosophical representation of harmony and balance.

In Lumen, there was no distinction between rich and poor. Social classes had long since been eradicated. Every inhabitant, from the youngest to the oldest, had access to the same resources: education, health, food and welfare. The work system was different from the old cities. Here, work was not an obligation to survive, but a voluntary activity aimed at contributing to the common good. There was no economic pressure, and people chose to do what they were passionate about. Workers, scientists, artists and philosophers shared their wisdom and skills, working side by side for a common goal.

Advanced technology, the result of shared effort, allowed basic needs to be met automatically. Energy was renewable, obtained from natural sources such as wind, sun and water. The houses were self-sufficient, built with recycled and biocompatible materials. Instead of being simple residences, the homes were small ecosystems where inhabitants grew their own food and recycled everything they used.

Access to education was universal and free. From an early age, children learned about human history, its mistakes and achievements, and how to work together to create a better future. Teaching was not aimed at gaining qualifications or skills to compete, but at strengthening character, empathy and collaboration.

People in this city reside in cooperative communities known as "support clusters," where they share resources and duties. In addition to guiding legislation, the principles of justice, peace, and harmony serve as the cornerstone of human interactions. The idea of home transcends biological relationships, and families come in a variety of forms. Children are raised in settings where their education and general well-being are attended to by the entire community in addition to their parents.

In this city, there was a very special group of friends. Among them were Elios, Lira and Tarin. Elios was a young man with the unique ability to communicate with the elements of nature. Since childhood he had developed a deep connection with water, wind and earth. He could make forests grow, calm storms and purify rivers. His gift made him the protector of Lumen's ecosystems, teaching everyone to live in symbiosis with their environment. For him, harmony was essential, as he understood that the balance between man and nature was the basis of all progress. Alongside him was his great friend Lira, an expert mediator, born in the city of Serenity, where disputes between peoples were always resolved through dialogue and understanding. Her ability to listen and understand others made her a respected leader who never resorted to violence or coercion. Lira organised peace circles where all voices were heard, creating solutions that would benefit all, without anyone being oppressed or ignored. Finally, the third component of the trio of friends was Tarin, a former judge and defender of fairness. His task was not only to judge, but also to teach people about the importance of justice in a balanced society. With his firm but fair perspective, he had abolished all kinds of discrimination and corruption in Lumen. He understood that justice was not only about punishing injustices but securing that all inhabitants had the same access to resources and opportunities, without any distinctions.

The three friends shared a common neighborhood in Lumen, Lakua, where they devoted their days to ensuring Lumen's justice, harmony, and peace. They enjoyed going to the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies in their spare time, where all citizens were valued and had a say in the decision-making process, which was based on agreement. The population met once a month through the Open Assemblies to talk about significant concerns, always looking for peaceful and inclusive solutions. Lumen arranged its governmental structure as follows:

Lumen's governmental structure was based on a council composed of representatives from different sectors of society: workers, educators, scientists, artists, elders and youth. This council, known as the Harmony Council, was responsible for making important decisions affecting the community. Council members were not elected by popular vote, but were selected for their commitment to Lumen's core values and their ability to mediate and make fair decisions.

Major decisions were made at the Open Assembly, a democratic forum where all citizens of Lumen had the right to make proposals, debate and vote on matters of collective interest. The Assembly was held every month, and decisions were taken by consensus. The active participation of citizens was crucial, as every voice was heard and consensus was reached rather than a majority imposing its will.

To ensure that government decisions were fair and equitable, Lumen relied on a group of mediators, known as the ‘Mediators of Harmony’. These individuals were selected for their ability to remain calm and seek peaceful solutions to disputes or conflicts. They acted as facilitators in the Open Assembly and in government decisions, ensuring that solutions were not only practical, but also reflected the values of peace, equity and justice.

In addition to the Open Assembly, Lumen was organised into small Local Action Circles, which are community groups responsible for making decisions on day-to-day and local issues, such as the distribution of resources, the organisation of community events and the resolution of minor conflicts. These circles allowed for greater autonomy and participation of citizens in local decision-making, promoting a sense of responsibility and ownership.

A Consensus System was developed in Lumen. Decisions were not taken by simple majority, but by a consensus. This meant that all members of the community had to reach a common agreement before an important decision was taken. This approach was intended to ensure that all voices were heard and that the decisions reflected the collective interest, avoiding the imposition of one party's will on another. If consensus could not be reached, further discussions and deliberations were held until a solution which everyone was satisfied with was reached.

The three boys loved being part of these Assemblies and understanding the inside functioning of Lumen. All three were very happy to belong to this society and were sure that nothing would ever break the harmony of Lumen, as they were its guardians. They lived happily with their families, or what in Lumen is understood as family. In this city the notion of family extends beyond blood ties. Citizens understand that the raising and education of children is not only the responsibility of the biological parents, but of the whole community. Therefore, children grow up surrounded by a wide circle of supportive and guiding adults, from grandparents to neighbours, creating a sense of collective belonging. To reinforce this loyalty to your family, every year the ‘Ritual of the Stones’ was celebrated. It was customary for all members of the family—biological or adoptive—to get together to discuss the past year, share achievements and challenges, and reinforce the relationships that unite them. Small tokens known as "Commitment Stones," which symbolized each family member's dedication to the group's overall welfare, were presented during the event. On their tenth birthday, the youngest family member was required to make this offering. It was Elios' younger brother's turn this year.

Elios was very excited about this fact, he had been waiting for this moment for years. For him, his little brother was everything he had, he raised him as if he was his own son. He taught him everything he needed to know about peace, harmony and love for others and he couldn't wait for his brother to do the sacred ritual. He remembered when it was his turn to do it, and he would never forget the moment he handed the stone to his grandfather. He wanted the experience for his brother to be the same or even better. Moreover, this year it would be even more special because the ritual would take place on the same day as The Feast of Harmony, Lumen's National Holiday, which he and his friends had the honour of preparing this year.

While the preparations for the party were keeping the guardians busy, a new group of kids arrived in town. They passed unnoticed among the good citizens of Lumen who, engrossed in the harmony and peace, did not realise the danger they were about to face. These boys were The Defiant. The members of the group were called Xera, Varys and Korra. These kids were lost kids, kids who after challenging the harmony and peace of other cities, were banished from them and forced to wander in the desert that separated the different cities. Forgotten and abandoned by their families, for them there was no such thing as a perfect society. Harmony, peace and justice seemed to them like a fantasy story and so, in their words, they wanted to open people's eyes, to make them realise that the government was controlling them by offering them a false sense of power. In the narrator's words, they wanted to destroy the systems from within so that no one else could live in harmony, peace and justice.

The group included Xera, the leader of the Defiant, Varys, an expert strategist, and Korra, the vigilante. All three boys hailed from the city of Cambria. They believed that the stability of Solaria had suffocated progress. Too much harmony had stopped innovation and personal growth. They believed that ambition and competition were necessary for humanity to advance. To this end, they had a well-organised plan to spread doubts among the people of Lumen. With this, they would gradually make the people acknowledge the reality and destroy the ‘perfect’ system. They would start this plan at the Harmony Party, where the whole city would gather.

The big day arrived. Elios, Lira and Tarin were preparing for the two most important celebrations of the year. They had worked hard to keep Lumen's values intact this year and the city had decided to honour them at the Harmony Festival as well. Thrilled, happy and excited, they arrived at the central square of the city where everyone was waiting for them. They greeted everyone and then the dancing, singing and games began. Food and drink were not to be missed either.

Meanwhile, the Defiant also arrived at the party. Once there, they split up and began their plan. During the previous days, the boys had been leaving a series of speeches and secret propaganda in the mailboxes of certain people they had already studied, people who had already shown a certain dissatisfaction with the system. They were the first to be approached by the Defiant.

Xera argued that the absence of competition and constant cooperation in Lumen had led to a lazy and conformist society, where true ambition and the desire to improve had disappeared. Varys, for the other hand, spread the idea that the peace experienced in Lumen was an illusion.Society had discovered ways to avoid issues rather than face conflict and disagreements directly, which had only resulted in a fragile and superficial peace.

Korra, finally, introduced the notion that Lumen had made people equal, but at the cost of their authenticity and individual growth. He argued that justice had established a system where everyone was treated equally, but people's true abilities and talents were not sufficiently valued. Instead of a world where differences were celebrated, Lumen had created a culture of mediocrity, where no one person stood out more than another. She also promoted a new idea, the exaltation of differences, where individual achievements were to be visibly rewarded, promoting a system that recognised the exceptional abilities of each individual.

In doing so, Xera's followers began to organise secret activities that challenged the peaceful norms of Lumen, engaging in clandestine games and competitions that destabilised the harmonious coexistence. Varys convinced several mediators of harmony that true peace would only be achieved when citizens confronted their differences and fought openly for their beliefs. Under this influence, small tensions began to emerge between communities that had never before challenged each other.

The impact of The Defiant was soon felt. The communities of Lumen began to experience a gradual breakdown of harmony. Xera's secret competitive games caused cooperative relationships to become tense. The mistrust created by Varys led to divisions between different groups that, prior to this influence, had been united in peace. And Korra's ideas of blended inequality began to gain support among those who felt their talents were not being recognised.

In the face of the tremendous commotion, certain sectors of society were very concerned about the danger to the values of Lumen. They brought together in an Open Assembly those responsible for maintaining the balance of Lumen, among them were our guardians. When it was Elios' turn to speak, he warned that it was normal that sometimes people would have different ideas but that they did not have to worry about anything, as the citizens of Lumen were wise and would know how to return to the path of balance. This reassured the mediators of harmony, but without much confidence, they put the three guardians in charge of restoring the balance.

Over the months, far from decreasing, the number of people who began to take a critical view of the Lumen system increased. It came to the point where a new movement contrary to the ideals of the city of Lumen, the Individual Freedom Movement, gained power, including several mediators of harmony in its ranks. At the Open Assembly in June 2300, they presented their thoughts to the astonished looks of the guardians. Among their thoughts were the creation of spaces where conflict is welcomed and managed openly, without the need for hiding or avoiding it. Leaders like Korra pushed this ideology, promoting a vision where people could have more freedom to pursue their own interests without being so constrained by the collective needs of society.

Lumen became divided as a result of this movement, with some members of the population standing up for a greater individual freedom at the expense of the wider community. The belief that harmony could only exist if everyone made sacrifices for the common good was called into question when the conflicts between individual rights and the general welfare turned into a philosophical and political dispute.

One of the guards, Lira, was among the group of people who started raising concerns. She had dedicated her entire life to preserving the principles that her community had taught her, fighting for harmony and communication in which all people were treated with respect and felt listened. Looking at this new situation, she really began to think about new ideas that she had never thought about before. Lira began to reflect on the need for a peace that is not just based on the absence of conflict, but on true equity and the inclusion of all voices, even those that challenge the status quo. In her moments of meditation, she asked: ‘Is harmony really possible if the dissonant voices are never heard, if the deep problems of society are ignored for the sake of apparent unity? Even if she already felt this way, she kept it from her friends.

Still feeling strange, Lira turned to the call of her friends, the guardians, who, faced with the tremendous commotion and not knowing what to do, turned to Thalia, the guardian of knowledge, Lumen's mentor and advisor. She was a wise old woman, known for her vast understanding of Lumen's history and her ability to teach the younger generation. She was one of the first to help create the structure of the society, and her role had always been to ensure that the values of harmony, peace and justice were not forgotten over time. Although her wisdom was unimaginable, her age and her emotional distance from the youth of Lumen sometimes made her feel that her vision was outdated. She often faced uncertainty as to whether society had moved too far forward and away from its original principles.

The guardians explained to Thalia everything that had happened in the last few months. Unlike the horrified and worried expressions of the guardians, she was not surprised at all. In her 103 years, it was not the first time she had seen something like this. She was well aware that maintaining the values of harmony, peace and justice and having them work perfectly within a society was not easy. She had seen it herself on other occasions with other groups of Defiant who came to the city with the desire to wreak havoc. She explained to them past situations and how they had often tried to disrupt the harmony of things. A talk that served to reinforce Lira's vision above all, who again reminded them of the importance of keeping core values alive. Elder Thalia's teachings from the past illuminated the path of the guardians, who found solutions to deal with the ‘chaos’ of the challengers.

They knew that each of the antagonists represented a side of the challenges associated with any ideal society, but they also understood that they had to act with caution, because a direct confrontation could destroy what Lumen had built. The guardians held an assembly, this time a private one, of the founding members of the Individual Freedom Movement. There, the guardians spoke to the three Defiant in an attempt to bring them to their senses.

Elios explained to Xera the real meaning of competition by using his talent to harmonize nature. He demonstrated to her how uncontrolled ambition, lacking teamwork and respect for one another, might ruin the social peace. However, Lira clarified that genuine peace resulted from the fair and equitable resolution of conflicts rather than their absence. She showed how conflict does not have to be destructive if it is approached with compassion and open communication. Finally, Tarin showed that, while individual differences are important, true justice is not about rewarding some over others, but about ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities to develop. He explained that equality did not mean homogeneity, but the creation of a system where each individual could reach their full potential, regardless of their natural abilities or talents.

After debating for 3 and a half days, the members of the Individual Freedom Movement and the guardians decided to set a day for a new Open Assembly, where all these issues would be debated and discussed by the people. Elios, together with Xera, stood at the central stand where everyone could listen to them. Elios was very nervous, as this day could dictate the future of his beloved city. He looked down and saw that all his family and community were there, waiting to see what would happen. But what calmed him the most, and at the same time filled him with strength, was to see his little brother. Are the values he grew up with really ideal and perfect, or did he have to be open to listen to certain changes that could make the lives of the citizens of Lumen better? The silent doubt was beginning to creep into him.

The assembly discussed a number of challenges that Lumen would have to face in the future. Among them, the challenge of maintaining peace without losing resilience, inequality in the distribution of resources or the implementation of education in a non-conflict society. The proposal for the latter was made by Vela, an elderly mediator who specialised in resolving disputes between the inhabitants of Lumen, from family disagreements to small community disputes. Her gift for understanding other people's emotions made her an invaluable resource for keeping the peace. However, she faced an internal crisis. As Lumen's society became more homogeneous and stable, she began to wonder if her role was less important. She often felt frustrated that conflicts had been reduced to minor issues and was afraid that her ability was not as relevant as before. This reflected the existential dilemmas that can arise in a society where conflict seems to have disappeared. This led to a question in the Assembly as to whether peace is more than simply the absence of disputes.

At the end of the debate, there was a breath of fresh air in the air. As they opened the door of the Assembly and stepped back out onto the street, the light from the Kirk satellite shone brightly overhead, creating a welcoming, bright and cheerful atmosphere for the inhabitants. New beginnings and processes of change were on the horizon for these citizens.

It had been decided to go for a change, a new society but based on the old fundamental values on which Lumen had been built. Finally, the Harmony Council decided, by consensus, to open this space for debate, allowing the established norms to be questioned. It was the first step towards a society that, although still perfect in its form, now allows itself to be constantly questioned and transformed. Through this process of reflection and change, Solaria began to understand that true harmony is not a static state, but a continuous process of learning and growth. Citizens no longer feared disagreements, but saw them as opportunities to improve their society.

Lumen reveals an uncomfortable truth: even in a world that seems perfect, there are always elements of doubt, conflict and discontent. Peace, harmony and justice are noble ideals, but the characters show us that their implementation is never perfect or easy. The doubts of Lira, Elios and Vela open a window into reflection on their own beliefs: is peace true if disagreement is not allowed? Is justice a concept that is only achieved in conformity, or is it in the constant struggle for the common good, even if this means confronting ourselves and others? Are we willing to challenge our beliefs and the status quo for a better future?

In Solaria, as in the real world, peace and justice are not something that is achieved once and forever. They are principles that must be constantly defended and challenged, so that they remain real and not just a comfortable illusion.

In the end, the guardians managed to convince the Defiant that instead of sowing mistrust, Solaria should face challenges collectively, learning from their differences rather than confronting them. They promised that together, they would look for ways to encourage innovation without losing balance with the environment and cooperation among citizens. The Defiant accepted and became full citizens of Lumen. They stopped wandering the deserts in search of creating chaos, because they understood that being part of a community and working and fighting for it was much more fulfilling and much happier.

From that day on, the day of The Feast of Harmony changed the date to the day when Lumen accepted that their principles of harmony, peace and justice could have different meanings and that discussing them was indispensable to advance them and not to lose them.

== LUMEN VS DIFFERENT HISTORICAL UTOPIAS AND DYSTOPIAS ==
A story is a fiction about something we would like to happen, a fantasy about a world without social classes, social justice, where people simply do not have to survive but to live.

'''Utopia,''' in this way, is understood as two things: firstly, the ‘desirable plan, project, doctrine or system that seems very difficult to realise’ and secondly, the ‘imaginative representation of a future society with characteristics that favour the human good’, that is, a society so perfect and idealised that it is practically impossible to reach it (Real Academia Española, n.d.)<ref>Real Academia Española. (n.d.). ''Utopía''. En Diccionario de la lengua española (23rd ed.). Retrieved from [https://dle.rae.es/utop%C3%ADa]</ref>.

A '''dystopia''' or anti-utopia is a fictional society that is undesirable in itself. The term, derived from Greek, was created by John Stuart Mill in the late 19th century as a direct antonym of utopia, which in turn was coined by St Thomas More and is the title of his best-known work, published in 1516, in which he describes a model for an ideal society with minimal levels of crime, violence and poverty (Wikipedia contributors, 2024a)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024a, December 19). Dystopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 12:01, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dystopia&oldid=1263860704]</ref>.

Despite being a history of our own, utopias and dystopias are concepts that have a long history. Authors such as Plato, in ''The Republic'' (ca. 380 BC), describe ideal societies, in this case, governed by philosopher-kings, where justice and social harmony are the fundamental pillars. Thomas More, in his work ''Utopia'' (1516), gives his name to the genre by imagining an island with a perfect political and social system, which indirectly criticises the problems of Renaissance Europe. Francis Bacon, for his part, in ''The New Atlantis'' (1627)<ref>Bacon, F. (1627). ''New Atlantis''. In W. Rawley (Ed.), ''Sylva Sylvarum: Or a Natural History''. London: Printed by J. H. for William Lee.</ref>, presents an ideal society based on scientific knowledge and collaboration for human progress. Later, Edward Bellamy, in ''Looking Backwards: 2000-1887'' (1888), envisions a socialist future where economic and social inequalities have been eliminated.

In the field of dystopias, authors such as George Orwell, with ''1984'' (1949), make a fierce criticism of totalitarianism, showing a world of constant surveillance and manipulation of thought. Aldous Huxley, in ''Brave New World'' (1932)<ref name=":0">Huxley, A. (2006). ''Brave new world'' (Reprint edition). Harper Perennial Modern Classics. (Original work published 1932).</ref>, posits a technocratic dystopia where pleasure and mass consumption replace individual freedom. Ray Bradbury, with ''Fahrenheit 451'' (1953)<ref>Bradbury, R. (1953). ''Fahrenheit 451''. Ballantine Books.</ref>, describes a society in which books are banned, and ignorance and superficial entertainment are used as tools of control. Margaret Atwood, in ''The Handmaid's Tale'' (1985)<ref>Atwood, M. (1985). ''El cuento de la criada''. McClelland & Stewart.</ref>, creates a theocratic and misogynistic dystopia where women are deprived of fundamental rights.

Yevgeny Zamiatin, author of ''We'' (1920), conceives one of the first modern dystopias, set in a world where individuality is completely subordinated to the state. On the other hand, Philip K. Dick, in ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'' (1968), explores a dystopian future in which the boundaries between humans and machines are blurred, questioning concepts such as identity and humanity.

Authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin, in ''The Dispossessed'' (1974), combines both approaches by narrating the story of two opposing worlds: one capitalist and the other anarchist, examining both utopian ideals and their limits. H.G. Wells, too, with ''A Modern Utopia'' (1905), examines how a utopia could work in practice, although he also wrote dystopias such as ''The Time Machine'' (1895).

These works, by both utopian and dystopian authors, have not only defined their respective genres, but have also profoundly influenced how we imagine, question and critique human societies.

There has been an evolution of these same terms, adapting to the advances and needs of the society of the moment. They all have in common that the main basis is a critique of the society of the moment. We could even consider it an escape from it, a way of coping with it. Thanks to this evolution, the classification of utopian societies would be as follows: political and historical utopia, economic utopia, technological utopia, ecological utopia and religious or spiritual utopia (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024b, October 22). Utopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:54, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&oldid=1252700236]</ref>.

Although following the classification of utopias underlying the ideals of the Information Society, discussed in the presentation of the course, there are six families of utopias: Computable Language, Computable Thought, Unlimited Availability of Knowledge, Computable Social Order (Normalization), Communication without borders, and Security vs Trust of the Information Society.

In this case, our history is framed within the concept of ''Computable Social Order'', as it idealises a just, egalitarian and equitable society. This framework allows for a more systematic analysis of our history with historical utopias and dystopias, facilitating the identification of common patterns and significant differences in how these visions of the future have been conceived.

Nicholas de Cusa (1401-1464), a German Renaissance philosopher, theologian and mathematician, did not explicitly propose a utopia in the modern sense of the term, but his ideas can be interpreted as the foundations of a ‘computable social order’ in certain respects (Wikipedia contributors, 2024c)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024c, September 7). Nicholas of Cusa. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:53, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_of_Cusa&oldid=1244461138]</ref>. His thought was based on principles of harmony, equality and the search for an underlying unity in diversity, ideas that could be related to an ideal society regulated by rational principles. In his work ''De Concordantia Catholica'', Nicholas de Cusa (1433) advocates the active participation of communities in government, proposing a model where decisions are made collectively. This idea is consistent with our decision-making, reminding us of the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies where the voice of every citizen is important, where consensus is sought, because following Cusa (1440) in his work ''De Docta Ignorantia'', the recognition of universal ‘ignorance’ fosters intellectual equality among human beings, which can be translated into the idea of a just society where no one imposes his or her vision in an absolute way.

We can see how rational principles not only govern Nicholas de Cusa's stories, but, in our invented utopian society (Lumen), they also constitute the central axis around which the entire social order is organised. In this idealised society, the values of reason and justice are systematically applied to all aspects of everyday life, from political decision-making to economic and social structure.

In our utopia, rationality not only guides individual thinking, but becomes the organising principle of the community. As in the works of Cusa, where the search for universal harmony is key, in our society collective decisions are based on a rational understanding of the needs and desires of individuals. Every action and every policy is based on a logical analysis that seeks to balance personal interests with the collective welfare, following the idea that justice is the perfect balance between all components of society.

The social structure of this utopia reflects the Cusa’s vision of unity in diversity: decisions are made that take into account the multiple voices of society, optimising resources and ensuring that all members receive what they need to reach their potential.

Cusa's (1440) ''Docta Ignorantia'', which underlines the limitation of human knowledge, is also reflected in our utopian society. Instead of claiming to possess absolute truth, an attitude of openness and intellectual humility is encouraged, in which individuals recognise the limitations of their understanding and constantly seek dialogue and collective improvement. In this context, education focuses not only on the acquisition of knowledge, but on the development of critical and reflective capacity, ensuring that decisions are made with a full awareness of their potential impact on society as a whole.

Moreover, in Lumen, all citizens have equal access to information and participation, helping to reduce power inequalities and ensuring that everyone can contribute to creating a common good for all.

The rational principles that guide our society come not only from the philosophical ideas of Nicholas de Cusa, but are also part of a system that ensures that justice, equality and reason are not just abstract ideas, but real principles that underpin the social order. Thus, in this ideal world, the decisions and organisation of society are designed to improve the lives of all people, creating a more just and balanced community.

Leaving aside the similarities with historical utopia, we want to compare it with dystopias such as Huxley's (2006)<ref name=":0" /> ''Brave New World'' and Deleuze's (1992)<ref name=":1">Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. ''October, 59'', 3–7.</ref> ''Control society.''

Comparing the three societies, we clearly see the differences in the way power and social control are organised, as well as collective well-being. Each of these societies presents a different vision of how technology and social structures influence people's lives, but they all have very different ideas about control, freedom and happiness.

In Huxley's (2006)<ref name=":0" /> ''Brave New World'', social control is totalitarian and carried out in subtle ways. People are conditioned from birth to fit into a pre-established place in society. In this world, there is no freedom to question the system, as genetic manipulation and the use of a drug called soma ensure that everyone is happy with their role. Happiness is guaranteed, but it is artificial, and deep human emotions, such as love or frustration, are eliminated. On the other hand, in Deleuze's (1992)<ref name=":1" /> ''control society'', control is less obvious but more extensive. Instead of direct control over people, power is dispersed through technology and data collection. Individuals' decisions are constantly influenced, but in ways they do not notice, creating an illusion of freedom. In this way, although individuals believe they are in control of their lives, in reality they are being manipulated by economic and technological systems.

In Lumen, the difference is clear. Here there is no constant control or manipulation. Society is based on the '''active participation''' of people, who have the power to influence collective decisions. People are '''autonomous''' and not conditioned by external forces. Instead of being constantly watched or manipulated by technology, citizens have equal access to '''information''', enabling them to make conscious and responsible decisions. Society is organised '''democratically''', where everyone can actively influence the creation of the common good.

When we talk about '''freedom''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006)<ref name=":0" /> there is no real freedom. People cannot choose their destiny, as everything is predetermined by the system. In ''The Control Society'' (Deleuze, 1992)<ref name=":1" />, although people believe they are free, in reality their freedom is limited by the invisible influences of data and technological systems. Freedom appears to be present, but in reality it is manipulated by the systems that control information. In our utopia, freedom is real. Individuals have the ability to make decisions without being conditioned by external forces. '''Individual autonomy''' is respected, and collective decisions are made fairly and democratically, ensuring that everyone can influence the organisation of society.

Finally, as for '''collective well-being''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006)<ref name=":0" /> it is achieved through uniformity and total control. Although the society appears stable and happy, in reality it is superficial, as everyone must conform and has no room for suffering or diversity of emotions. Justice in this society is focused on maintaining order, regardless of the human costs. In Deleuze's (2006)<ref name=":1" /> ''control society'', welfare is also efficiently managed, but again it is conditioned by technological manipulation. Although there appears to be a collective welfare, in reality it is based on the management of individuals through their data. In Lumen, collective welfare is achieved through '''equity and social justice'''. Everyone has access to the resources necessary to develop their potential, and decisions are made for the common good, always respecting the autonomy of each person.

== CONCLUSION ==
In short, the main similarity and difference lies in what is meant by collective welfare in our history and the idea of working towards the betterment of society as a whole (as we accept people's discontent and improve for it) and not fight against the people. A more modern, progressive view of collective welfare focuses on fighting for and with the people, actively listening to their concerns and making changes to create a better, more just society.

When we talk about collective welfare today, it's rooted in the idea that society must be flexible, fair, and equitable. This means creating opportunities for everyone, regardless of their background, to thrive. A key aspect of this is understanding the importance of fairness and justice in policy-making. Society must work towards an egalitarian system where no one is left behind, and where the voices of all people are heard and considered in the decisions that shape their lives.

One crucial point is that we cannot progress without reflecting on our past. By acknowledging the mistakes we've made, we can learn from them and avoid repeating them. This reflection is vital for growth, whether on a personal level or in the development of society as a whole. If we ignore the lessons of history, we risk falling into the same traps that have hindered progress before.

In short, the journey towards collective welfare involves creating a society that listens to its people, learns from its mistakes, and works continuously to ensure fairness, equality, and justice for all. Without such a commitment, we would be doomed to repeat the errors of the past. With Lumen, its governmental organisation and its inherent values that are passed on generationally, we believe we cover those aspects.

The realisation of this work, taking up what has been said above about how it is a critique of today's society, has led us to learn about the social utility of a utopian story: to reflect on society and its shortcomings. Utopias and dystopias not only present us with visions of ideal or terrifying futures, but can act as mirrors that allow us to see, in a clear way, the problems and dangers inherent in our current realities. In this sense, both utopias and dystopias are powerful tools for social critique, as they invite us to question our political structures, our beliefs and our way of life.

Utopias, while idealising a perfect future, are deeply rooted in the social concerns of the moment in which they are conceived. They are often born as direct responses to the problems a society faces. A clear example of this is Thomas More's ''Utopia'', which dates from the 16th century. His work, ''Utopia'' (More, 1516), reflects a strong desire to resolve the social injustices of his time, such as poverty and corruption. In the society More describes, resources are shared equally, and people work together for the common good, eliminating social divisions and inequalities. This is not just an idealised vision of the future, but a direct critique of the social and political structures of Renaissance Europe, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, while the majority suffered the consequences of an unjust system.

Today, contemporary utopias (of which ours is one) follow this same pattern, but address more contemporary social and environmental problems, such as growing economic inequality, racial discrimination, and extreme poverty. Modern utopias often focus on creating a more just and equitable world, where all individuals have access to essential resources such as education, health and decent work. In this way, contemporary utopias are not only dreams of perfection, but also responses to the global challenges we face today, offering alternatives for a more sustainable and just future.

Despite their idealistic character, utopias also reveal the limitations of current systems. They show us what we could achieve if we work together and commit to values of fairness and justice, but they also warn us about the difficulties inherent in realising a perfect society. This is where dystopias come into play, serving as a counterpoint that warns of the dangers of inaction. Dystopias do not present us with desirable futures, but with pessimistic ones. They show us what might happen if we fail to address the problems of the present effectively, and if our aspirations for social justice and progress drift towards authoritarianism, total control or dehumanisation. Dystopias, rather than offering a solution, function as social warnings. They show us futures where the social and political problems we face today, such as oppression, discrimination and inequality, have been exacerbated to unsustainable limits.

This relationship between utopia and dystopia, far from being a contradiction, invites us to question our own realities and to reflect on the choices we make as a society. If we are not vigilant, we run the risk of falling into the same mistakes of the past, seeking perfection at the expense of our freedom and diversity. However, if we learn from the lessons of history and continue to strive for a more just society, we can prevent our ideals from becoming tools of oppression. In this way, utopias and dystopias ultimately serve as powerful reminders of the need to constantly reflect on what we want to build as a society, without losing sight of the dangers of over-centralisation of power and loss of individual autonomy.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Bellamy, E. (1888). ''Mirando hacia atrás: 2000-1887''.

Dick, P. K. (1968). ''¿Sueñan los androides con ovejas eléctricas?''.

Huxley, A. (1932). ''Un mundo feliz''.

Le Guin, U. K. (1974). ''Los desposeídos''.

More, T. (1516). ''Utopia''.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1433). ''De concordantia catholica''.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1440). ''De docta ignorantia''.

Orwell, G. (1949). ''1984''.

Platón. (ca. 380 a.C.). ''La República''.

Wells, H. G. (1905). ''Una utopía moderna''.

Zamiatin, Y. (1920). ''Nosotros''.

Draft:Lumen

2025-01-28T21:47:16Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES */

Article prepared by: [[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]], [[User:Maider Acedo López]] and [[User:Izaro Belloso]].

== OUR OWN UTOPIA STORY ==
In the distant age of harmony, long before man forgot the principles of equity, there was a place where dreams of equality, liberty and fraternity were not just abstract ideals, but a palpable reality. That place was called Lumen, a city that knew no darkness, neither physical nor moral, as its inhabitants, guided by deep principles of cooperation, love and justice, lived in perfect balance.

Lumen was no ordinary city, it was the product of years of ethical evolution, a civilisation that, after many falls and rebuildings, had come to understand the importance of living without distinction. There was no poverty or wealth; hunger had been eradicated long before the new generations were born. People were not defined by money, power or lineage; they were defined by their ability to share, listen and contribute to collective well-being.

The creation of Lumen had originated centuries ago, in a time of great divisions. The ancient inhabitants of the world lived in societies where gold, power and influence dictated the fate of people. Starvation and inequality were common, and wars over resources were frequent. But a small group of visionaries began to work on a revolutionary idea: if all human beings had access to the same things and no one was above another, what would the world be like?

Over time, this group managed to build Lumen, a city that functioned on a fundamental principle: ‘The welfare of all is the welfare of one’.

Lumen is situated in the center of Solaria, a vast area known for its beautiful, rich landscapes and warm climate. The city is situated at the merging of two significant rivers that flow down from the highlands, surrounded by vast deserts and breathtaking mountain ranges. These rivers, which converge near the city, provide a steady water supply and contribute to the city’s agricultural abundance. The position of Lumen allows it to maintain a strategic advantage, offering access to both the natural resources from the mountains and the fertile lands of the river valleys.

The city’s geolocation places it in a zone of moderate elevation, ensuring a balance between the extremes of high-altitude climates and the harshness of the low desert plains. The surrounding hills provide a natural buffer against harsh winds, creating a microclimate that promotes year-round growth of plants, trees, and crops. The area is sheltered enough to encourage the flourishing of both urban and natural ecosystems, making it a haven for biodiversity. The nearby mountains also serve as a spiritual symbol, as they stand tall on the horizon, embodying the aspirations of Lumen’s citizens for stability and endurance.

Lumen’s position between the desert and mountain ranges also ensures that it remains somewhat isolated from the surrounding cities, which gives it a unique cultural and political identity. This geographical separation allows Lumen to maintain its ideals of peace, harmony, and justice without much external influence. However, it is not completely isolated from the rest of Solaria, as the city is connected to nearby areas by well-maintained roads and bridges, facilitating transit, trade, and cultural exchange. These relationships ensure that Lumen's residents stay aware and involved with the outside world by promoting a balance between independence and openness to outside influences.

The city is located strategically next to the Kirk satellite, an advanced technological device that circles over Lumen. In addition to being a representation of Lumen's link to the wider universe, this satellite also serves a functional purpose by controlling the city's technological and communications system. The satellite’s influence reaches down into the city, maintaining a constant connection with other regions and reinforcing Lumen’s ideal of interconnectedness. This unique positioning of Lumen at the confluence of natural beauty, strategic isolation, and technological advancement shapes its identity and guides the lives of its people.

The city of Lumen is a symbol of the delicate balance between human innovation and nature. Its architecture blends perfectly with its surroundings, a structure built on the principles of justice, harmony and peace.

Smooth stones in the shape of river stones, transparent glass walls that reflect the vast sky, and wood from trees carefully grown to blend in with the environment are some of the materials used to construct the buildings in Lumen. The open and flowing design of the buildings, often with curved lines that mimic the gentle flow of nature, and their green, plant-filled roofs help to create a sense of continuity between the natural and artificial worlds.

The town's central square, where the traditional festivities are held, is large and open, lined with large circular stone pavers that resemble ripples in a pond, symbolising the spread of peaceful influence. Trees, their branches arching gracefully, provide shade and shelter, and fountains of clear, flowing water add to the tranquil atmosphere. In the distance, the majestic Kirk satellite can be seen in the sky, a symbol of the city’s connection to the cosmos and a reminder of the importance of balance between the Earth and the stars.

The natural surroundings of Lumen are as harmonious as the city itself. Large fields of golden grass stretch out in every direction, blowing in the breeze, while gently rounded hills are dotted with colourful wildflowers that change with the seasons. Forests of tall, slim trees, their trunks pale and almost luminous, offer peaceful groves where citizens come to meditate, find comfort or simply enjoy the quiet beauty of nature. These groves, carefully protected, are sacred spaces where harmony is sought through tranquillity and reflection.

Another distinctive aspect of Lumen's geography are its rivers, which flow through the city like veins. The waters are crystal clear, flowing steadily but slowly, and never losing their serenity. These rivers are crossed by little bridges with decorative railings that link different areas of the city and highlight the notion that even the smallest acts of collaboration may bring people together.

In this peaceful world, every building, every tree, and every river seems to have been placed with a purpose, creating a city that is both a physical and philosophical representation of harmony and balance.

In Lumen, there was no distinction between rich and poor. Social classes had long since been eradicated. Every inhabitant, from the youngest to the oldest, had access to the same resources: education, health, food and welfare. The work system was different from the old cities. Here, work was not an obligation to survive, but a voluntary activity aimed at contributing to the common good. There was no economic pressure, and people chose to do what they were passionate about. Workers, scientists, artists and philosophers shared their wisdom and skills, working side by side for a common goal.

Advanced technology, the result of shared effort, allowed basic needs to be met automatically. Energy was renewable, obtained from natural sources such as wind, sun and water. The houses were self-sufficient, built with recycled and biocompatible materials. Instead of being simple residences, the homes were small ecosystems where inhabitants grew their own food and recycled everything they used.

Access to education was universal and free. From an early age, children learned about human history, its mistakes and achievements, and how to work together to create a better future. Teaching was not aimed at gaining qualifications or skills to compete, but at strengthening character, empathy and collaboration.

People in this city reside in cooperative communities known as "support clusters," where they share resources and duties. In addition to guiding legislation, the principles of justice, peace, and harmony serve as the cornerstone of human interactions. The idea of home transcends biological relationships, and families come in a variety of forms. Children are raised in settings where their education and general well-being are attended to by the entire community in addition to their parents.

In this city, there was a very special group of friends. Among them were Elios, Lira and Tarin. Elios was a young man with the unique ability to communicate with the elements of nature. Since childhood he had developed a deep connection with water, wind and earth. He could make forests grow, calm storms and purify rivers. His gift made him the protector of Lumen's ecosystems, teaching everyone to live in symbiosis with their environment. For him, harmony was essential, as he understood that the balance between man and nature was the basis of all progress. Alongside him was his great friend Lira, an expert mediator, born in the city of Serenity, where disputes between peoples were always resolved through dialogue and understanding. Her ability to listen and understand others made her a respected leader who never resorted to violence or coercion. Lira organised peace circles where all voices were heard, creating solutions that would benefit all, without anyone being oppressed or ignored. Finally, the third component of the trio of friends was Tarin, a former judge and defender of fairness. His task was not only to judge, but also to teach people about the importance of justice in a balanced society. With his firm but fair perspective, he had abolished all kinds of discrimination and corruption in Lumen. He understood that justice was not only about punishing injustices but securing that all inhabitants had the same access to resources and opportunities, without any distinctions.

The three friends shared a common neighborhood in Lumen, Lakua, where they devoted their days to ensuring Lumen's justice, harmony, and peace. They enjoyed going to the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies in their spare time, where all citizens were valued and had a say in the decision-making process, which was based on agreement. The population met once a month through the Open Assemblies to talk about significant concerns, always looking for peaceful and inclusive solutions. Lumen arranged its governmental structure as follows:

Lumen's governmental structure was based on a council composed of representatives from different sectors of society: workers, educators, scientists, artists, elders and youth. This council, known as the Harmony Council, was responsible for making important decisions affecting the community. Council members were not elected by popular vote, but were selected for their commitment to Lumen's core values and their ability to mediate and make fair decisions.

Major decisions were made at the Open Assembly, a democratic forum where all citizens of Lumen had the right to make proposals, debate and vote on matters of collective interest. The Assembly was held every month, and decisions were taken by consensus. The active participation of citizens was crucial, as every voice was heard and consensus was reached rather than a majority imposing its will.

To ensure that government decisions were fair and equitable, Lumen relied on a group of mediators, known as the ‘Mediators of Harmony’. These individuals were selected for their ability to remain calm and seek peaceful solutions to disputes or conflicts. They acted as facilitators in the Open Assembly and in government decisions, ensuring that solutions were not only practical, but also reflected the values of peace, equity and justice.

In addition to the Open Assembly, Lumen was organised into small Local Action Circles, which are community groups responsible for making decisions on day-to-day and local issues, such as the distribution of resources, the organisation of community events and the resolution of minor conflicts. These circles allowed for greater autonomy and participation of citizens in local decision-making, promoting a sense of responsibility and ownership.

A Consensus System was developed in Lumen. Decisions were not taken by simple majority, but by a consensus. This meant that all members of the community had to reach a common agreement before an important decision was taken. This approach was intended to ensure that all voices were heard and that the decisions reflected the collective interest, avoiding the imposition of one party's will on another. If consensus could not be reached, further discussions and deliberations were held until a solution which everyone was satisfied with was reached.

The three boys loved being part of these Assemblies and understanding the inside functioning of Lumen. All three were very happy to belong to this society and were sure that nothing would ever break the harmony of Lumen, as they were its guardians. They lived happily with their families, or what in Lumen is understood as family. In this city the notion of family extends beyond blood ties. Citizens understand that the raising and education of children is not only the responsibility of the biological parents, but of the whole community. Therefore, children grow up surrounded by a wide circle of supportive and guiding adults, from grandparents to neighbours, creating a sense of collective belonging. To reinforce this loyalty to your family, every year the ‘Ritual of the Stones’ was celebrated. It was customary for all members of the family—biological or adoptive—to get together to discuss the past year, share achievements and challenges, and reinforce the relationships that unite them. Small tokens known as "Commitment Stones," which symbolized each family member's dedication to the group's overall welfare, were presented during the event. On their tenth birthday, the youngest family member was required to make this offering. It was Elios' younger brother's turn this year.

Elios was very excited about this fact, he had been waiting for this moment for years. For him, his little brother was everything he had, he raised him as if he was his own son. He taught him everything he needed to know about peace, harmony and love for others and he couldn't wait for his brother to do the sacred ritual. He remembered when it was his turn to do it, and he would never forget the moment he handed the stone to his grandfather. He wanted the experience for his brother to be the same or even better. Moreover, this year it would be even more special because the ritual would take place on the same day as The Feast of Harmony, Lumen's National Holiday, which he and his friends had the honour of preparing this year.

While the preparations for the party were keeping the guardians busy, a new group of kids arrived in town. They passed unnoticed among the good citizens of Lumen who, engrossed in the harmony and peace, did not realise the danger they were about to face. These boys were The Defiant. The members of the group were called Xera, Varys and Korra. These kids were lost kids, kids who after challenging the harmony and peace of other cities, were banished from them and forced to wander in the desert that separated the different cities. Forgotten and abandoned by their families, for them there was no such thing as a perfect society. Harmony, peace and justice seemed to them like a fantasy story and so, in their words, they wanted to open people's eyes, to make them realise that the government was controlling them by offering them a false sense of power. In the narrator's words, they wanted to destroy the systems from within so that no one else could live in harmony, peace and justice.

The group included Xera, the leader of the Defiant, Varys, an expert strategist, and Korra, the vigilante. All three boys hailed from the city of Cambria. They believed that the stability of Solaria had suffocated progress. Too much harmony had stopped innovation and personal growth. They believed that ambition and competition were necessary for humanity to advance. To this end, they had a well-organised plan to spread doubts among the people of Lumen. With this, they would gradually make the people acknowledge the reality and destroy the ‘perfect’ system. They would start this plan at the Harmony Party, where the whole city would gather.

The big day arrived. Elios, Lira and Tarin were preparing for the two most important celebrations of the year. They had worked hard to keep Lumen's values intact this year and the city had decided to honour them at the Harmony Festival as well. Thrilled, happy and excited, they arrived at the central square of the city where everyone was waiting for them. They greeted everyone and then the dancing, singing and games began. Food and drink were not to be missed either.

Meanwhile, the Defiant also arrived at the party. Once there, they split up and began their plan. During the previous days, the boys had been leaving a series of speeches and secret propaganda in the mailboxes of certain people they had already studied, people who had already shown a certain dissatisfaction with the system. They were the first to be approached by the Defiant.

Xera argued that the absence of competition and constant cooperation in Lumen had led to a lazy and conformist society, where true ambition and the desire to improve had disappeared. Varys, for the other hand, spread the idea that the peace experienced in Lumen was an illusion.Society had discovered ways to avoid issues rather than face conflict and disagreements directly, which had only resulted in a fragile and superficial peace.

Korra, finally, introduced the notion that Lumen had made people equal, but at the cost of their authenticity and individual growth. He argued that justice had established a system where everyone was treated equally, but people's true abilities and talents were not sufficiently valued. Instead of a world where differences were celebrated, Lumen had created a culture of mediocrity, where no one person stood out more than another. She also promoted a new idea, the exaltation of differences, where individual achievements were to be visibly rewarded, promoting a system that recognised the exceptional abilities of each individual.

In doing so, Xera's followers began to organise secret activities that challenged the peaceful norms of Lumen, engaging in clandestine games and competitions that destabilised the harmonious coexistence. Varys convinced several mediators of harmony that true peace would only be achieved when citizens confronted their differences and fought openly for their beliefs. Under this influence, small tensions began to emerge between communities that had never before challenged each other.

The impact of The Defiant was soon felt. The communities of Lumen began to experience a gradual breakdown of harmony. Xera's secret competitive games caused cooperative relationships to become tense. The mistrust created by Varys led to divisions between different groups that, prior to this influence, had been united in peace. And Korra's ideas of blended inequality began to gain support among those who felt their talents were not being recognised.

In the face of the tremendous commotion, certain sectors of society were very concerned about the danger to the values of Lumen. They brought together in an Open Assembly those responsible for maintaining the balance of Lumen, among them were our guardians. When it was Elios' turn to speak, he warned that it was normal that sometimes people would have different ideas but that they did not have to worry about anything, as the citizens of Lumen were wise and would know how to return to the path of balance. This reassured the mediators of harmony, but without much confidence, they put the three guardians in charge of restoring the balance.

Over the months, far from decreasing, the number of people who began to take a critical view of the Lumen system increased. It came to the point where a new movement contrary to the ideals of the city of Lumen, the Individual Freedom Movement, gained power, including several mediators of harmony in its ranks. At the Open Assembly in June 2300, they presented their thoughts to the astonished looks of the guardians. Among their thoughts were the creation of spaces where conflict is welcomed and managed openly, without the need for hiding or avoiding it. Leaders like Korra pushed this ideology, promoting a vision where people could have more freedom to pursue their own interests without being so constrained by the collective needs of society.

Lumen became divided as a result of this movement, with some members of the population standing up for a greater individual freedom at the expense of the wider community. The belief that harmony could only exist if everyone made sacrifices for the common good was called into question when the conflicts between individual rights and the general welfare turned into a philosophical and political dispute.

One of the guards, Lira, was among the group of people who started raising concerns. She had dedicated her entire life to preserving the principles that her community had taught her, fighting for harmony and communication in which all people were treated with respect and felt listened. Looking at this new situation, she really began to think about new ideas that she had never thought about before. Lira began to reflect on the need for a peace that is not just based on the absence of conflict, but on true equity and the inclusion of all voices, even those that challenge the status quo. In her moments of meditation, she asked: ‘Is harmony really possible if the dissonant voices are never heard, if the deep problems of society are ignored for the sake of apparent unity? Even if she already felt this way, she kept it from her friends.

Still feeling strange, Lira turned to the call of her friends, the guardians, who, faced with the tremendous commotion and not knowing what to do, turned to Thalia, the guardian of knowledge, Lumen's mentor and advisor. She was a wise old woman, known for her vast understanding of Lumen's history and her ability to teach the younger generation. She was one of the first to help create the structure of the society, and her role had always been to ensure that the values of harmony, peace and justice were not forgotten over time. Although her wisdom was unimaginable, her age and her emotional distance from the youth of Lumen sometimes made her feel that her vision was outdated. She often faced uncertainty as to whether society had moved too far forward and away from its original principles.

The guardians explained to Thalia everything that had happened in the last few months. Unlike the horrified and worried expressions of the guardians, she was not surprised at all. In her 103 years, it was not the first time she had seen something like this. She was well aware that maintaining the values of harmony, peace and justice and having them work perfectly within a society was not easy. She had seen it herself on other occasions with other groups of Defiant who came to the city with the desire to wreak havoc. She explained to them past situations and how they had often tried to disrupt the harmony of things. A talk that served to reinforce Lira's vision above all, who again reminded them of the importance of keeping core values alive. Elder Thalia's teachings from the past illuminated the path of the guardians, who found solutions to deal with the ‘chaos’ of the challengers.

They knew that each of the antagonists represented a side of the challenges associated with any ideal society, but they also understood that they had to act with caution, because a direct confrontation could destroy what Lumen had built. The guardians held an assembly, this time a private one, of the founding members of the Individual Freedom Movement. There, the guardians spoke to the three Defiant in an attempt to bring them to their senses.

Elios explained to Xera the real meaning of competition by using his talent to harmonize nature. He demonstrated to her how uncontrolled ambition, lacking teamwork and respect for one another, might ruin the social peace. However, Lira clarified that genuine peace resulted from the fair and equitable resolution of conflicts rather than their absence. She showed how conflict does not have to be destructive if it is approached with compassion and open communication. Finally, Tarin showed that, while individual differences are important, true justice is not about rewarding some over others, but about ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities to develop. He explained that equality did not mean homogeneity, but the creation of a system where each individual could reach their full potential, regardless of their natural abilities or talents.

After debating for 3 and a half days, the members of the Individual Freedom Movement and the guardians decided to set a day for a new Open Assembly, where all these issues would be debated and discussed by the people. Elios, together with Xera, stood at the central stand where everyone could listen to them. Elios was very nervous, as this day could dictate the future of his beloved city. He looked down and saw that all his family and community were there, waiting to see what would happen. But what calmed him the most, and at the same time filled him with strength, was to see his little brother. Are the values he grew up with really ideal and perfect, or did he have to be open to listen to certain changes that could make the lives of the citizens of Lumen better? The silent doubt was beginning to creep into him.

The assembly discussed a number of challenges that Lumen would have to face in the future. Among them, the challenge of maintaining peace without losing resilience, inequality in the distribution of resources or the implementation of education in a non-conflict society. The proposal for the latter was made by Vela, an elderly mediator who specialised in resolving disputes between the inhabitants of Lumen, from family disagreements to small community disputes. Her gift for understanding other people's emotions made her an invaluable resource for keeping the peace. However, she faced an internal crisis. As Lumen's society became more homogeneous and stable, she began to wonder if her role was less important. She often felt frustrated that conflicts had been reduced to minor issues and was afraid that her ability was not as relevant as before. This reflected the existential dilemmas that can arise in a society where conflict seems to have disappeared. This led to a question in the Assembly as to whether peace is more than simply the absence of disputes.

At the end of the debate, there was a breath of fresh air in the air. As they opened the door of the Assembly and stepped back out onto the street, the light from the Kirk satellite shone brightly overhead, creating a welcoming, bright and cheerful atmosphere for the inhabitants. New beginnings and processes of change were on the horizon for these citizens.

It had been decided to go for a change, a new society but based on the old fundamental values on which Lumen had been built. Finally, the Harmony Council decided, by consensus, to open this space for debate, allowing the established norms to be questioned. It was the first step towards a society that, although still perfect in its form, now allows itself to be constantly questioned and transformed. Through this process of reflection and change, Solaria began to understand that true harmony is not a static state, but a continuous process of learning and growth. Citizens no longer feared disagreements, but saw them as opportunities to improve their society.

Lumen reveals an uncomfortable truth: even in a world that seems perfect, there are always elements of doubt, conflict and discontent. Peace, harmony and justice are noble ideals, but the characters show us that their implementation is never perfect or easy. The doubts of Lira, Elios and Vela open a window into reflection on their own beliefs: is peace true if disagreement is not allowed? Is justice a concept that is only achieved in conformity, or is it in the constant struggle for the common good, even if this means confronting ourselves and others? Are we willing to challenge our beliefs and the status quo for a better future?

In Solaria, as in the real world, peace and justice are not something that is achieved once and forever. They are principles that must be constantly defended and challenged, so that they remain real and not just a comfortable illusion.

In the end, the guardians managed to convince the Defiant that instead of sowing mistrust, Solaria should face challenges collectively, learning from their differences rather than confronting them. They promised that together, they would look for ways to encourage innovation without losing balance with the environment and cooperation among citizens. The Defiant accepted and became full citizens of Lumen. They stopped wandering the deserts in search of creating chaos, because they understood that being part of a community and working and fighting for it was much more fulfilling and much happier.

From that day on, the day of The Feast of Harmony changed the date to the day when Lumen accepted that their principles of harmony, peace and justice could have different meanings and that discussing them was indispensable to advance them and not to lose them.

== LUMEN VS DIFFERENT HISTORICAL UTOPIAS AND DYSTOPIAS ==
A story is a fiction about something we would like to happen, a fantasy about a world without social classes, social justice, where people simply do not have to survive but to live.

'''Utopia,''' in this way, is understood as two things: firstly, the ‘desirable plan, project, doctrine or system that seems very difficult to realise’ and secondly, the ‘imaginative representation of a future society with characteristics that favour the human good’, that is, a society so perfect and idealised that it is practically impossible to reach it (Real Academia Española, n.d.)<ref>Real Academia Española. (n.d.). ''Utopía''. En Diccionario de la lengua española (23rd ed.). Retrieved from [https://dle.rae.es/utop%C3%ADa]</ref>.

A '''dystopia''' or anti-utopia is a fictional society that is undesirable in itself. The term, derived from Greek, was created by John Stuart Mill in the late 19th century as a direct antonym of utopia, which in turn was coined by St Thomas More and is the title of his best-known work, published in 1516, in which he describes a model for an ideal society with minimal levels of crime, violence and poverty (Wikipedia contributors, 2024a)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024a, December 19). Dystopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 12:01, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dystopia&oldid=1263860704]</ref>.

Despite being a history of our own, utopias and dystopias are concepts that have a long history. Authors such as Plato, in ''The Republic'' (ca. 380 BC), describe ideal societies, in this case, governed by philosopher-kings, where justice and social harmony are the fundamental pillars. Thomas More, in his work ''Utopia'' (1516), gives his name to the genre by imagining an island with a perfect political and social system, which indirectly criticises the problems of Renaissance Europe. Francis Bacon, for his part, in ''The New Atlantis'' (1627)<ref>Bacon, F. (1627). ''New Atlantis''. In W. Rawley (Ed.), ''Sylva Sylvarum: Or a Natural History''. London: Printed by J. H. for William Lee.</ref>, presents an ideal society based on scientific knowledge and collaboration for human progress. Later, Edward Bellamy, in ''Looking Backwards: 2000-1887'' (1888), envisions a socialist future where economic and social inequalities have been eliminated.

In the field of dystopias, authors such as George Orwell, with ''1984'' (1949), make a fierce criticism of totalitarianism, showing a world of constant surveillance and manipulation of thought. Aldous Huxley, in ''Brave New World'' (1932)<ref name=":0">Huxley, A. (2006). ''Brave new world'' (Reprint edition). Harper Perennial Modern Classics. (Original work published 1932).</ref>, posits a technocratic dystopia where pleasure and mass consumption replace individual freedom. Ray Bradbury, with ''Fahrenheit 451'' (1953), describes a society in which books are banned, and ignorance and superficial entertainment are used as tools of control. Margaret Atwood, in ''The Handmaid's Tale'' (1985)<ref>Atwood, M. (1985). ''El cuento de la criada''. McClelland & Stewart.</ref>, creates a theocratic and misogynistic dystopia where women are deprived of fundamental rights.

Yevgeny Zamiatin, author of ''We'' (1920), conceives one of the first modern dystopias, set in a world where individuality is completely subordinated to the state. On the other hand, Philip K. Dick, in ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'' (1968), explores a dystopian future in which the boundaries between humans and machines are blurred, questioning concepts such as identity and humanity.

Authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin, in ''The Dispossessed'' (1974), combines both approaches by narrating the story of two opposing worlds: one capitalist and the other anarchist, examining both utopian ideals and their limits. H.G. Wells, too, with ''A Modern Utopia'' (1905), examines how a utopia could work in practice, although he also wrote dystopias such as ''The Time Machine'' (1895).

These works, by both utopian and dystopian authors, have not only defined their respective genres, but have also profoundly influenced how we imagine, question and critique human societies.

There has been an evolution of these same terms, adapting to the advances and needs of the society of the moment. They all have in common that the main basis is a critique of the society of the moment. We could even consider it an escape from it, a way of coping with it. Thanks to this evolution, the classification of utopian societies would be as follows: political and historical utopia, economic utopia, technological utopia, ecological utopia and religious or spiritual utopia (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024b, October 22). Utopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:54, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&oldid=1252700236]</ref>.

Although following the classification of utopias underlying the ideals of the Information Society, discussed in the presentation of the course, there are six families of utopias: Computable Language, Computable Thought, Unlimited Availability of Knowledge, Computable Social Order (Normalization), Communication without borders, and Security vs Trust of the Information Society.

In this case, our history is framed within the concept of ''Computable Social Order'', as it idealises a just, egalitarian and equitable society. This framework allows for a more systematic analysis of our history with historical utopias and dystopias, facilitating the identification of common patterns and significant differences in how these visions of the future have been conceived.

Nicholas de Cusa (1401-1464), a German Renaissance philosopher, theologian and mathematician, did not explicitly propose a utopia in the modern sense of the term, but his ideas can be interpreted as the foundations of a ‘computable social order’ in certain respects (Wikipedia contributors, 2024c)<ref>Wikipedia contributors. (2024c, September 7). Nicholas of Cusa. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:53, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_of_Cusa&oldid=1244461138]</ref>. His thought was based on principles of harmony, equality and the search for an underlying unity in diversity, ideas that could be related to an ideal society regulated by rational principles. In his work ''De Concordantia Catholica'', Nicholas de Cusa (1433) advocates the active participation of communities in government, proposing a model where decisions are made collectively. This idea is consistent with our decision-making, reminding us of the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies where the voice of every citizen is important, where consensus is sought, because following Cusa (1440) in his work ''De Docta Ignorantia'', the recognition of universal ‘ignorance’ fosters intellectual equality among human beings, which can be translated into the idea of a just society where no one imposes his or her vision in an absolute way.

We can see how rational principles not only govern Nicholas de Cusa's stories, but, in our invented utopian society (Lumen), they also constitute the central axis around which the entire social order is organised. In this idealised society, the values of reason and justice are systematically applied to all aspects of everyday life, from political decision-making to economic and social structure.

In our utopia, rationality not only guides individual thinking, but becomes the organising principle of the community. As in the works of Cusa, where the search for universal harmony is key, in our society collective decisions are based on a rational understanding of the needs and desires of individuals. Every action and every policy is based on a logical analysis that seeks to balance personal interests with the collective welfare, following the idea that justice is the perfect balance between all components of society.

The social structure of this utopia reflects the Cusa’s vision of unity in diversity: decisions are made that take into account the multiple voices of society, optimising resources and ensuring that all members receive what they need to reach their potential.

Cusa's (1440) ''Docta Ignorantia'', which underlines the limitation of human knowledge, is also reflected in our utopian society. Instead of claiming to possess absolute truth, an attitude of openness and intellectual humility is encouraged, in which individuals recognise the limitations of their understanding and constantly seek dialogue and collective improvement. In this context, education focuses not only on the acquisition of knowledge, but on the development of critical and reflective capacity, ensuring that decisions are made with a full awareness of their potential impact on society as a whole.

Moreover, in Lumen, all citizens have equal access to information and participation, helping to reduce power inequalities and ensuring that everyone can contribute to creating a common good for all.

The rational principles that guide our society come not only from the philosophical ideas of Nicholas de Cusa, but are also part of a system that ensures that justice, equality and reason are not just abstract ideas, but real principles that underpin the social order. Thus, in this ideal world, the decisions and organisation of society are designed to improve the lives of all people, creating a more just and balanced community.

Leaving aside the similarities with historical utopia, we want to compare it with dystopias such as Huxley's (2006)<ref name=":0" /> ''Brave New World'' and Deleuze's (1992)<ref name=":1">Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. ''October, 59'', 3–7.</ref> ''Control society.''

Comparing the three societies, we clearly see the differences in the way power and social control are organised, as well as collective well-being. Each of these societies presents a different vision of how technology and social structures influence people's lives, but they all have very different ideas about control, freedom and happiness.

In Huxley's (2006)<ref name=":0" /> ''Brave New World'', social control is totalitarian and carried out in subtle ways. People are conditioned from birth to fit into a pre-established place in society. In this world, there is no freedom to question the system, as genetic manipulation and the use of a drug called soma ensure that everyone is happy with their role. Happiness is guaranteed, but it is artificial, and deep human emotions, such as love or frustration, are eliminated. On the other hand, in Deleuze's (1992)<ref name=":1" /> ''control society'', control is less obvious but more extensive. Instead of direct control over people, power is dispersed through technology and data collection. Individuals' decisions are constantly influenced, but in ways they do not notice, creating an illusion of freedom. In this way, although individuals believe they are in control of their lives, in reality they are being manipulated by economic and technological systems.

In Lumen, the difference is clear. Here there is no constant control or manipulation. Society is based on the '''active participation''' of people, who have the power to influence collective decisions. People are '''autonomous''' and not conditioned by external forces. Instead of being constantly watched or manipulated by technology, citizens have equal access to '''information''', enabling them to make conscious and responsible decisions. Society is organised '''democratically''', where everyone can actively influence the creation of the common good.

When we talk about '''freedom''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006)<ref name=":0" /> there is no real freedom. People cannot choose their destiny, as everything is predetermined by the system. In ''The Control Society'' (Deleuze, 1992)<ref name=":1" />, although people believe they are free, in reality their freedom is limited by the invisible influences of data and technological systems. Freedom appears to be present, but in reality it is manipulated by the systems that control information. In our utopia, freedom is real. Individuals have the ability to make decisions without being conditioned by external forces. '''Individual autonomy''' is respected, and collective decisions are made fairly and democratically, ensuring that everyone can influence the organisation of society.

Finally, as for '''collective well-being''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006)<ref name=":0" /> it is achieved through uniformity and total control. Although the society appears stable and happy, in reality it is superficial, as everyone must conform and has no room for suffering or diversity of emotions. Justice in this society is focused on maintaining order, regardless of the human costs. In Deleuze's (2006)<ref name=":1" /> ''control society'', welfare is also efficiently managed, but again it is conditioned by technological manipulation. Although there appears to be a collective welfare, in reality it is based on the management of individuals through their data. In Lumen, collective welfare is achieved through '''equity and social justice'''. Everyone has access to the resources necessary to develop their potential, and decisions are made for the common good, always respecting the autonomy of each person.

== CONCLUSION ==
In short, the main similarity and difference lies in what is meant by collective welfare in our history and the idea of working towards the betterment of society as a whole (as we accept people's discontent and improve for it) and not fight against the people. A more modern, progressive view of collective welfare focuses on fighting for and with the people, actively listening to their concerns and making changes to create a better, more just society.

When we talk about collective welfare today, it's rooted in the idea that society must be flexible, fair, and equitable. This means creating opportunities for everyone, regardless of their background, to thrive. A key aspect of this is understanding the importance of fairness and justice in policy-making. Society must work towards an egalitarian system where no one is left behind, and where the voices of all people are heard and considered in the decisions that shape their lives.

One crucial point is that we cannot progress without reflecting on our past. By acknowledging the mistakes we've made, we can learn from them and avoid repeating them. This reflection is vital for growth, whether on a personal level or in the development of society as a whole. If we ignore the lessons of history, we risk falling into the same traps that have hindered progress before.

In short, the journey towards collective welfare involves creating a society that listens to its people, learns from its mistakes, and works continuously to ensure fairness, equality, and justice for all. Without such a commitment, we would be doomed to repeat the errors of the past. With Lumen, its governmental organisation and its inherent values that are passed on generationally, we believe we cover those aspects.

The realisation of this work, taking up what has been said above about how it is a critique of today's society, has led us to learn about the social utility of a utopian story: to reflect on society and its shortcomings. Utopias and dystopias not only present us with visions of ideal or terrifying futures, but can act as mirrors that allow us to see, in a clear way, the problems and dangers inherent in our current realities. In this sense, both utopias and dystopias are powerful tools for social critique, as they invite us to question our political structures, our beliefs and our way of life.

Utopias, while idealising a perfect future, are deeply rooted in the social concerns of the moment in which they are conceived. They are often born as direct responses to the problems a society faces. A clear example of this is Thomas More's ''Utopia'', which dates from the 16th century. His work, ''Utopia'' (More, 1516), reflects a strong desire to resolve the social injustices of his time, such as poverty and corruption. In the society More describes, resources are shared equally, and people work together for the common good, eliminating social divisions and inequalities. This is not just an idealised vision of the future, but a direct critique of the social and political structures of Renaissance Europe, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, while the majority suffered the consequences of an unjust system.

Today, contemporary utopias (of which ours is one) follow this same pattern, but address more contemporary social and environmental problems, such as growing economic inequality, racial discrimination, and extreme poverty. Modern utopias often focus on creating a more just and equitable world, where all individuals have access to essential resources such as education, health and decent work. In this way, contemporary utopias are not only dreams of perfection, but also responses to the global challenges we face today, offering alternatives for a more sustainable and just future.

Despite their idealistic character, utopias also reveal the limitations of current systems. They show us what we could achieve if we work together and commit to values of fairness and justice, but they also warn us about the difficulties inherent in realising a perfect society. This is where dystopias come into play, serving as a counterpoint that warns of the dangers of inaction. Dystopias do not present us with desirable futures, but with pessimistic ones. They show us what might happen if we fail to address the problems of the present effectively, and if our aspirations for social justice and progress drift towards authoritarianism, total control or dehumanisation. Dystopias, rather than offering a solution, function as social warnings. They show us futures where the social and political problems we face today, such as oppression, discrimination and inequality, have been exacerbated to unsustainable limits.

This relationship between utopia and dystopia, far from being a contradiction, invites us to question our own realities and to reflect on the choices we make as a society. If we are not vigilant, we run the risk of falling into the same mistakes of the past, seeking perfection at the expense of our freedom and diversity. However, if we learn from the lessons of history and continue to strive for a more just society, we can prevent our ideals from becoming tools of oppression. In this way, utopias and dystopias ultimately serve as powerful reminders of the need to constantly reflect on what we want to build as a society, without losing sight of the dangers of over-centralisation of power and loss of individual autonomy.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Bellamy, E. (1888). ''Mirando hacia atrás: 2000-1887''.

Bradbury, R. (1953). ''Fahrenheit 451''.

Dick, P. K. (1968). ''¿Sueñan los androides con ovejas eléctricas?''.

Huxley, A. (1932). ''Un mundo feliz''.

Le Guin, U. K. (1974). ''Los desposeídos''.

More, T. (1516). ''Utopia''.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1433). ''De concordantia catholica''.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1440). ''De docta ignorantia''.

Orwell, G. (1949). ''1984''.

Platón. (ca. 380 a.C.). ''La República''.

Wells, H. G. (1905). ''Una utopía moderna''.

Zamiatin, Y. (1920). ''Nosotros''.

Draft:Reasoning

2025-01-28T21:25:04Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}Article prepared by: [[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez|Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]] and [[User:Maider Acedo López|Maider Acedo López]].

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905)<ref>Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.</ref>. The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.)<ref>Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]''</ref> states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.)<ref>Anders, V. (n.d.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. [https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n] </ref>.

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0">Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute.[https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]</ref>. Following Njoya (2024)<ref name=":0" />, as Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is ''“the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”''. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Peirce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living species (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0" />. Johnson-Laird (2006)<ref>Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press</ref> states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance extends to various aspects of our lives, such as decisions in our daily lives or professional contexts, helping us to develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial to problem solving: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so that it is easier to analyse its components and deduce solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016)<ref>Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.</ref>, reasoning enables people to evaluate arguments, identify biases and make informed judgements. With this in mind, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000)<ref>Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.</ref>, reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals to present coherent arguments, persuade others and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well facilitates the expression of thoughts in a structured and logical way, which can influence the reception of ideas. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling ideas to be communicated clearly.

Furthermore, Kahneman (2011)<ref>Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.</ref> suggests in his ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables people to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes and make informed decisions. Thus, reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process and, without it, people might rely on intuition, which may not be as reliable as reasoning.

Finally, following Dienes (2001)<ref>Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.</ref>, reasoning helps individuals to maintain an open mind, encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As mentioned, reasoning fosters flexibility of thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003)<ref name=":1">López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]</ref>. For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970)<ref>Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago.</ref>, Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo López (2003)<ref name=":1" />, we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Thus, in '''Ancient Greece,''' Aristotle developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work such as the Organon (Aristotle, Cooke and Tredennick, 1938)<ref>Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.</ref>. These ideas profoundly influenced world traditions, such as the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2">Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.</ref>.

During the '''medieval period,''' Islamic scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, laying the foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2" />. At the same time, scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating their role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009)<ref>Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.</ref>.

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, paving the way for the '''Scientific Revolution''', in which thinkers such as Galileo and Newton proposed empirical methods essential to understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962)<ref>Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.</ref> highlights this period as crucial, as it marked a paradigm shift that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment,''' known as the ‘Age of Reason’, saw philosophers such as Kant champion reason as the foundation of morality and government. Kant (1781/1998)<ref>Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).</ref> critically examined the capacities of human reason, defending its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers such as Nietzsche later criticized the universalism of reason, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2" />.

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019)<ref>Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]</ref> a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3">Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.</ref>.

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006)<ref name=":3" /> article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006)<ref name=":3" /> states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.)<ref>Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]</ref>. Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017)<ref name=":4">Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.</ref>, inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)<ref>Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.</ref>, inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023)<ref>Herrity, J. (2023). ''What Is Inductive Reasoning? Definitions, Types and Examples'', retrieved from Indeed. [https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/inductive-reasoning]</ref> statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017)<ref name=":4" /> note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017)<ref name=":4" />.

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012)<ref name=":5">Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.</ref>. In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cárdenas (n.d.)<ref>Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.</ref> an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992)<ref>Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]</ref> words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them (Nubiola, n.d.)<ref>Nubiola, J. (n.d.). ''La abducción o lógica de la sorpresa según Charles S. Peirce''. Universidad de Navarra. Retrieved from [https://www.unav.es/users/AbduccionCiudadJuarez2017.pdf]</ref>. He does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis (Aliseda, 1998) <ref name=":11" />.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998)<ref name=":11">Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.</ref>.

According to Villar (2008)<ref name=":6">Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.</ref>, another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993)<ref>Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.</ref> view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946)<ref name=":7">Burks, A. W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.</ref>. We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946)<ref name=":7" />.

Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012)<ref name=":5" />:

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012)<ref name=":5" />.

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012)<ref>Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.</ref> words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739-1740)<ref>Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature'', independently published.</ref> the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932)<ref>Peirce, C. S. (1932). Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. In ''Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce'' (Vol. 2, Paragraphs 619–644). Harvard University Press.</ref> and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical process, Lipton (2004)<ref name=":8">Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.</ref> says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998)<ref name=":9">Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.</ref>. All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 2004)<ref name=":8" />. While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012)<ref name=":5" /> presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015)<ref>Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.</ref>.

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021)<ref>Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas? ''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]</ref> and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.)<ref>LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]</ref> there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988)<ref>Hamm, R. M. (1988). ''Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum.'' In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020)<ref>Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.</ref>.

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016)<ref>O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.</ref>. This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

For this work, AI has been helpful in improving our vocabulary and phrases, since the search for information has been on our part.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010)<ref>National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics'', retrieved from [https://corestandards.org/mathematics-standards/] </ref>.

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017)<ref>Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.</ref>.

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019)<ref>Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.</ref>.

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10">Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org, from [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]</ref>.

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0" />.

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998)<ref name=":9" />.

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2025-01-28T21:23:41Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* Definition */

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}Article prepared by: <nowiki>[[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[User:Maider Acedo López]]</nowiki>.
== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905)<ref>Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.</ref>. The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.)<ref>Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]''</ref> states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.)<ref>Anders, V. (n.d.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. [https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n] </ref>.

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0">Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute.[https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]</ref>. Following Njoya (2024)<ref name=":0" />, as Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is ''“the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”''. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Peirce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living species (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0" />. Johnson-Laird (2006)<ref>Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press</ref> states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance extends to various aspects of our lives, such as decisions in our daily lives or professional contexts, helping us to develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial to problem solving: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so that it is easier to analyse its components and deduce solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016)<ref>Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.</ref>, reasoning enables people to evaluate arguments, identify biases and make informed judgements. With this in mind, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000)<ref>Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.</ref>, reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals to present coherent arguments, persuade others and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well facilitates the expression of thoughts in a structured and logical way, which can influence the reception of ideas. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling ideas to be communicated clearly.

Furthermore, Kahneman (2011)<ref>Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.</ref> suggests in his ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables people to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes and make informed decisions. Thus, reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process and, without it, people might rely on intuition, which may not be as reliable as reasoning.

Finally, following Dienes (2001)<ref>Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.</ref>, reasoning helps individuals to maintain an open mind, encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As mentioned, reasoning fosters flexibility of thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003)<ref name=":1">López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]</ref>. For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970)<ref>Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago.</ref>, Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo López (2003)<ref name=":1" />, we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Thus, in '''Ancient Greece,''' Aristotle developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work such as the Organon (Aristotle, Cooke and Tredennick, 1938)<ref>Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.</ref>. These ideas profoundly influenced world traditions, such as the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2">Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.</ref>.

During the '''medieval period,''' Islamic scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, laying the foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2" />. At the same time, scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating their role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009)<ref>Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.</ref>.

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, paving the way for the '''Scientific Revolution''', in which thinkers such as Galileo and Newton proposed empirical methods essential to understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962)<ref>Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.</ref> highlights this period as crucial, as it marked a paradigm shift that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment,''' known as the ‘Age of Reason’, saw philosophers such as Kant champion reason as the foundation of morality and government. Kant (1781/1998)<ref>Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).</ref> critically examined the capacities of human reason, defending its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers such as Nietzsche later criticized the universalism of reason, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2" />.

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019)<ref>Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]</ref> a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3">Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.</ref>.

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006)<ref name=":3" /> article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006)<ref name=":3" /> states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.)<ref>Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]</ref>. Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017)<ref name=":4">Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.</ref>, inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)<ref>Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.</ref>, inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023)<ref>Herrity, J. (2023). ''What Is Inductive Reasoning? Definitions, Types and Examples'', retrieved from Indeed. [https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/inductive-reasoning]</ref> statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017)<ref name=":4" /> note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017)<ref name=":4" />.

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012)<ref name=":5">Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.</ref>. In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cárdenas (n.d.)<ref>Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.</ref> an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992)<ref>Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]</ref> words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them (Nubiola, n.d.)<ref>Nubiola, J. (n.d.). ''La abducción o lógica de la sorpresa según Charles S. Peirce''. Universidad de Navarra. Retrieved from [https://www.unav.es/users/AbduccionCiudadJuarez2017.pdf]</ref>. He does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis (Aliseda, 1998) <ref name=":11" />.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998)<ref name=":11">Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.</ref>.

According to Villar (2008)<ref name=":6">Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.</ref>, another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993)<ref>Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.</ref> view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946)<ref name=":7">Burks, A. W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.</ref>. We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946)<ref name=":7" />.

Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012)<ref name=":5" />:

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012)<ref name=":5" />.

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012)<ref>Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.</ref> words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739-1740)<ref>Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature'', independently published.</ref> the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932)<ref>Peirce, C. S. (1932). Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. In ''Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce'' (Vol. 2, Paragraphs 619–644). Harvard University Press.</ref> and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical process, Lipton (2004)<ref name=":8">Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.</ref> says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998)<ref name=":9">Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.</ref>. All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 2004)<ref name=":8" />. While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012)<ref name=":5" /> presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015)<ref>Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.</ref>.

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021)<ref>Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas? ''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]</ref> and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.)<ref>LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]</ref> there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988)<ref>Hamm, R. M. (1988). ''Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum.'' In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020)<ref>Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.</ref>.

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016)<ref>O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.</ref>. This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

For this work, AI has been helpful in improving our vocabulary and phrases, since the search for information has been on our part.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010)<ref>National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics'', retrieved from [https://corestandards.org/mathematics-standards/] </ref>.

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017)<ref>Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.</ref>.

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019)<ref>Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.</ref>.

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10">Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org, from [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]</ref>.

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0" />.

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998)<ref name=":9" />.

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2025-01-28T12:26:56Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}Article prepared by: <nowiki>[[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[User:Maider Acedo López]]</nowiki>.
== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905)<ref>Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.</ref>. The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.)<ref>Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]''</ref> states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.)<ref>Anders, V. (n.d.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. [https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n] </ref>.

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0">Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute.[https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]</ref>. Following Njoya (2024)<ref name=":0" />, as Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is ''“the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”''. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Peirce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living species (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0" />. Johnson-Laird (2006)<ref>Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press</ref> states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance extends to various aspects of our lives, such as decisions in our daily lives or professional contexts, helping us to develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial to problem solving: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so that it is easier to analyse its components and deduce solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016)<ref>Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.</ref>, reasoning enables people to evaluate arguments, identify biases and make informed judgements. With this in mind, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000)<ref>Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.</ref>, reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals to present coherent arguments, persuade others and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well facilitates the expression of thoughts in a structured and logical way, which can influence the reception of ideas. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling ideas to be communicated clearly.

Furthermore, Kahneman (2011)<ref>Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.</ref> suggests in his ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables people to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes and make informed decisions. Thus, reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process and, without it, people might rely on intuition, which may not be as reliable as reasoning.

Finally, following Dienes (2001)<ref>Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.</ref>, reasoning helps individuals to maintain an open mind, encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As mentioned, reasoning fosters flexibility of thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003)<ref name=":1">López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]</ref>. For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970)<ref>Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago.</ref>, Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo López (2003)<ref name=":1" />, we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Thus, in '''Ancient Greece,''' Aristotle developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work such as the Organon (Aristotle, Cooke and Tredennick, 1938)<ref>Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.</ref>. These ideas profoundly influenced world traditions, such as the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2">Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.</ref>.

During the '''medieval period,''' Islamic scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, laying the foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2" />. At the same time, scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating their role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009)<ref>Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.</ref>.

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, paving the way for the '''Scientific Revolution''', in which thinkers such as Galileo and Newton proposed empirical methods essential to understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962)<ref>Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.</ref> highlights this period as crucial, as it marked a paradigm shift that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment,''' known as the ‘Age of Reason’, saw philosophers such as Kant champion reason as the foundation of morality and government. Kant (1781/1998)<ref>Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).</ref> critically examined the capacities of human reason, defending its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers such as Nietzsche later criticized the universalism of reason, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2" />.

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019)<ref>Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]</ref> a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3">Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.</ref>.

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006)<ref name=":3" /> article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006)<ref name=":3" /> states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.)<ref>Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]</ref>. Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017)<ref name=":4">Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.</ref>, inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)<ref>Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.</ref>, inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023)<ref>Herrity, J. (2023). ''What Is Inductive Reasoning? Definitions, Types and Examples'', retrieved from Indeed. [https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/inductive-reasoning]</ref> statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017)<ref name=":4" /> note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017)<ref name=":4" />.

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012)<ref name=":5">Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.</ref>. In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cárdenas (n.d.)<ref>Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.</ref> an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992)<ref>Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]</ref> words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce (1898) does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998)<ref>Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.</ref>.

According to Villar (2008)<ref name=":6">Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.</ref>, another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993)<ref>Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.</ref> view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946)<ref name=":7">Burks, A. W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.</ref>. We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946)<ref name=":7" />.

Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012)<ref name=":5" />:

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012)<ref name=":5" />.

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012)<ref>Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.</ref> words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739-1740)<ref>Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature'', independently published.</ref> the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical process, Lipton (2004)<ref name=":8">Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.</ref> says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998)<ref name=":9">Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.</ref>. All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 2004)<ref name=":8" />. While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012)<ref name=":5" /> presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015)<ref>Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.</ref>.

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021)<ref>Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas? ''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]</ref> and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.)<ref>LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]</ref> there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020)<ref>Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.</ref>.

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016)<ref>O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.</ref>. This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

For this work, AI has been helpful in improving our vocabulary and phrases, since the search for information has been on our part.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010)<ref>National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics'', retrieved from [https://corestandards.org/mathematics-standards/] </ref>.

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017)<ref>Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.</ref>.

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019)<ref>Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.</ref>.

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10">Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org, from [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]</ref>.

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0" />.

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998)<ref name=":9" />.

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
<references />

Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (n.d.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

Burks, A. W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas? ''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature'', independently published.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago.

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.

Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2025-01-28T12:26:06Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}Article prepared by: <nowiki>[[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[User:Maider Acedo López]]</nowiki>.
== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905)<ref>Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.</ref>. The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.)<ref>Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]''</ref> states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.)<ref>Anders, V. (n.d.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. [https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n] </ref>.

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0">Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute.[https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]</ref>. Following Njoya (2024)<ref name=":0" />, as Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is ''“the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”''. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Peirce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living species (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0" />. Johnson-Laird (2006)<ref>Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press</ref> states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance extends to various aspects of our lives, such as decisions in our daily lives or professional contexts, helping us to develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial to problem solving: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so that it is easier to analyse its components and deduce solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016)<ref>Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.</ref>, reasoning enables people to evaluate arguments, identify biases and make informed judgements. With this in mind, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000)<ref>Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.</ref>, reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals to present coherent arguments, persuade others and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well facilitates the expression of thoughts in a structured and logical way, which can influence the reception of ideas. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling ideas to be communicated clearly.

Furthermore, Kahneman (2011)<ref>Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.</ref> suggests in his ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables people to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes and make informed decisions. Thus, reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process and, without it, people might rely on intuition, which may not be as reliable as reasoning.

Finally, following Dienes (2001)<ref>Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.</ref>, reasoning helps individuals to maintain an open mind, encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As mentioned, reasoning fosters flexibility of thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003)<ref name=":1">López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]</ref>. For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970)<ref>Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago.</ref>, Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo López (2003)<ref name=":1" />, we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Thus, in '''Ancient Greece,''' Aristotle developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work such as the Organon (Aristotle, Cooke and Tredennick, 1938)<ref>Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.</ref>. These ideas profoundly influenced world traditions, such as the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2">Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.</ref>.

During the '''medieval period,''' Islamic scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, laying the foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2" />. At the same time, scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating their role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009)<ref>Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.</ref>.

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, paving the way for the '''Scientific Revolution''', in which thinkers such as Galileo and Newton proposed empirical methods essential to understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962)<ref>Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.</ref> highlights this period as crucial, as it marked a paradigm shift that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment,''' known as the ‘Age of Reason’, saw philosophers such as Kant champion reason as the foundation of morality and government. Kant (1781/1998)<ref>Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).</ref> critically examined the capacities of human reason, defending its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers such as Nietzsche later criticized the universalism of reason, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945)<ref name=":2" />.

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019)<ref>Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]</ref> a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3">Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.</ref>.

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006)<ref name=":3" /> article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006)<ref name=":3" /> states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.)<ref>Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]</ref>. Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017)<ref name=":4">Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.</ref>, inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)<ref>Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.</ref>, inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006)<ref name=":3" />.

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023)<ref>Herrity, J. (2023). ''What Is Inductive Reasoning? Definitions, Types and Examples'', retrieved from Indeed. [https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/inductive-reasoning]</ref> statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017)<ref name=":4" /> note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017)<ref name=":4" />.

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012)<ref name=":5">Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.</ref>. In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cárdenas (n.d.)<ref>Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.</ref> an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992)<ref>Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]</ref> words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce (1898) does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998)<ref>Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.</ref>.

According to Villar (2008)<ref name=":6">Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.</ref>, another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993)<ref>Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.</ref> view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946)<ref name=":7">Burks, A. W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.</ref>. We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946)<ref name=":7" />.

Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012)<ref name=":5" />:

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012)<ref name=":5" />.

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012)<ref>Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.</ref> words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739-1740)<ref>Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature'', independently published.</ref> the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical process, Lipton (2004)<ref name=":8">Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.</ref> says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998)<ref name=":9">Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.</ref>. All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 2004)<ref name=":8" />. While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008)<ref name=":6" /> presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012)<ref name=":5" /> presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015)<ref>Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.</ref>.

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021)<ref>Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas? ''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]</ref> and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.)<ref>LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]</ref> there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020)<ref>Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.</ref>.

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016)<ref>O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.</ref>. This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

For this work, AI has been helpful in improving our vocabulary and phrases, since the search for information has been on our part.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010)<ref>National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics'', retrieved from [https://corestandards.org/mathematics-standards/] </ref>.

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017)<ref>Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.</ref>.

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019)<ref>Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.</ref>.

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10">Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org, from [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]</ref>.

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.)<ref name=":10" />.

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024)<ref name=":0" />.

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998)<ref name=":9" />.

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==

Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (n.d.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

Burks, A. W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas? ''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature'', independently published.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago.

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.

Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Lumen

2024-12-29T19:57:53Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez:

Article prepared by: <nowiki>[[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]]</nowiki>, <nowiki>[[User: Maider Acedo López]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[User: Izaro Belloso Ambrosio]]</nowiki>.

== OUR OWN UTOPIA STORY ==
In the distant age of harmony, long before man forgot the principles of equity, there was a place where dreams of equality, liberty and fraternity were not just abstract ideals, but a palpable reality. That place was called Lumen, a city that knew no darkness, neither physical nor moral, as its inhabitants, guided by deep principles of cooperation, love and justice, lived in perfect balance.

Lumen was no ordinary city, it was the product of years of ethical evolution, a civilisation that, after many falls and rebuildings, had come to understand the importance of living without distinction. There was no poverty or wealth; hunger had been eradicated long before the new generations were born. People were not defined by money, power or lineage; they were defined by their ability to share, listen and contribute to collective well-being.

The creation of Lumen had originated centuries ago, in a time of great divisions. The ancient inhabitants of the world lived in societies where gold, power and influence dictated the fate of people. Starvation and inequality were common, and wars over resources were frequent. But a small group of visionaries began to work on a revolutionary idea: if all human beings had access to the same things and no one was above another, what would the world be like?

Over time, this group managed to build Lumen, a city that functioned on a fundamental principle: ‘The welfare of all is the welfare of one’.

Lumen is situated in the center of Solaria, a vast area known for its beautiful, rich landscapes and warm climate. The city is situated at the merging of two significant rivers that flow down from the highlands, surrounded by vast deserts and breathtaking mountain ranges. These rivers, which converge near the city, provide a steady water supply and contribute to the city’s agricultural abundance. The position of Lumen allows it to maintain a strategic advantage, offering access to both the natural resources from the mountains and the fertile lands of the river valleys.

The city’s geolocation places it in a zone of moderate elevation, ensuring a balance between the extremes of high-altitude climates and the harshness of the low desert plains. The surrounding hills provide a natural buffer against harsh winds, creating a microclimate that promotes year-round growth of plants, trees, and crops. The area is sheltered enough to encourage the flourishing of both urban and natural ecosystems, making it a haven for biodiversity. The nearby mountains also serve as a spiritual symbol, as they stand tall on the horizon, embodying the aspirations of Lumen’s citizens for stability and endurance.

Lumen’s position between the desert and mountain ranges also ensures that it remains somewhat isolated from the surrounding cities, which gives it a unique cultural and political identity. This geographical separation allows Lumen to maintain its ideals of peace, harmony, and justice without much external influence. However, it is not completely isolated from the rest of Solaria, as the city is connected to nearby areas by well-maintained roads and bridges, facilitating transit, trade, and cultural exchange. These relationships ensure that Lumen's residents stay aware and involved with the outside world by promoting a balance between independence and openness to outside influences.

The city is located strategically next to the Kirk satellite, an advanced technological device that circles over Lumen. In addition to being a representation of Lumen's link to the wider universe, this satellite also serves a functional purpose by controlling the city's technological and communications system. The satellite’s influence reaches down into the city, maintaining a constant connection with other regions and reinforcing Lumen’s ideal of interconnectedness. This unique positioning of Lumen at the confluence of natural beauty, strategic isolation, and technological advancement shapes its identity and guides the lives of its people.

The city of Lumen is a symbol of the delicate balance between human innovation and nature. Its architecture blends perfectly with its surroundings, a structure built on the principles of justice, harmony and peace.

Smooth stones in the shape of river stones, transparent glass walls that reflect the vast sky, and wood from trees carefully grown to blend in with the environment are some of the materials used to construct the buildings in Lumen. The open and flowing design of the buildings, often with curved lines that mimic the gentle flow of nature, and their green, plant-filled roofs help to create a sense of continuity between the natural and artificial worlds.

The town's central square, where the traditional festivities are held, is large and open, lined with large circular stone pavers that resemble ripples in a pond, symbolising the spread of peaceful influence. Trees, their branches arching gracefully, provide shade and shelter, and fountains of clear, flowing water add to the tranquil atmosphere. In the distance, the majestic Kirk satellite can be seen in the sky, a symbol of the city’s connection to the cosmos and a reminder of the importance of balance between the Earth and the stars.

The natural surroundings of Lumen are as harmonious as the city itself. Large fields of golden grass stretch out in every direction, blowing in the breeze, while gently rounded hills are dotted with colourful wildflowers that change with the seasons. Forests of tall, slim trees, their trunks pale and almost luminous, offer peaceful groves where citizens come to meditate, find comfort or simply enjoy the quiet beauty of nature. These groves, carefully protected, are sacred spaces where harmony is sought through tranquillity and reflection.

Another distinctive aspect of Lumen's geography are its rivers, which flow through the city like veins. The waters are crystal clear, flowing steadily but slowly, and never losing their serenity. These rivers are crossed by little bridges with decorative railings that link different areas of the city and highlight the notion that even the smallest acts of collaboration may bring people together.

In this peaceful world, every building, every tree, and every river seems to have been placed with a purpose, creating a city that is both a physical and philosophical representation of harmony and balance.

In Lumen, there was no distinction between rich and poor. Social classes had long since been eradicated. Every inhabitant, from the youngest to the oldest, had access to the same resources: education, health, food and welfare. The work system was different from the old cities. Here, work was not an obligation to survive, but a voluntary activity aimed at contributing to the common good. There was no economic pressure, and people chose to do what they were passionate about. Workers, scientists, artists and philosophers shared their wisdom and skills, working side by side for a common goal.

Advanced technology, the result of shared effort, allowed basic needs to be met automatically. Energy was renewable, obtained from natural sources such as wind, sun and water. The houses were self-sufficient, built with recycled and biocompatible materials. Instead of being simple residences, the homes were small ecosystems where inhabitants grew their own food and recycled everything they used.

Access to education was universal and free. From an early age, children learned about human history, its mistakes and achievements, and how to work together to create a better future. Teaching was not aimed at gaining qualifications or skills to compete, but at strengthening character, empathy and collaboration.

People in this city reside in cooperative communities known as "support clusters," where they share resources and duties. In addition to guiding legislation, the principles of justice, peace, and harmony serve as the cornerstone of human interactions. The idea of home transcends biological relationships, and families come in a variety of forms. Children are raised in settings where their education and general well-being are attended to by the entire community in addition to their parents.

In this city, there was a very special group of friends. Among them were Elios, Lira and Tarin. Elios was a young man with the unique ability to communicate with the elements of nature. Since childhood he had developed a deep connection with water, wind and earth. He could make forests grow, calm storms and purify rivers. His gift made him the protector of Lumen's ecosystems, teaching everyone to live in symbiosis with their environment. For him, harmony was essential, as he understood that the balance between man and nature was the basis of all progress. Alongside him was his great friend Lira, an expert mediator, born in the city of Serenity, where disputes between peoples were always resolved through dialogue and understanding. Her ability to listen and understand others made her a respected leader who never resorted to violence or coercion. Lira organised peace circles where all voices were heard, creating solutions that would benefit all, without anyone being oppressed or ignored. Finally, the third component of the trio of friends was Tarin, a former judge and defender of fairness. His task was not only to judge, but also to teach people about the importance of justice in a balanced society. With his firm but fair perspective, he had abolished all kinds of discrimination and corruption in Lumen. He understood that justice was not only about punishing injustices but securing that all inhabitants had the same access to resources and opportunities, without any distinctions.

The three friends shared a common neighborhood in Lumen, Lakua, where they devoted their days to ensuring Lumen's justice, harmony, and peace. They enjoyed going to the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies in their spare time, where all citizens were valued and had a say in the decision-making process, which was based on agreement. The population met once a month through the Open Assemblies to talk about significant concerns, always looking for peaceful and inclusive solutions. Lumen arranged its governmental structure as follows:

Lumen's governmental structure was based on a council composed of representatives from different sectors of society: workers, educators, scientists, artists, elders and youth. This council, known as the Harmony Council, was responsible for making important decisions affecting the community. Council members were not elected by popular vote, but were selected for their commitment to Lumen's core values and their ability to mediate and make fair decisions.

Major decisions were made at the Open Assembly, a democratic forum where all citizens of Lumen had the right to make proposals, debate and vote on matters of collective interest. The Assembly was held every month, and decisions were taken by consensus. The active participation of citizens was crucial, as every voice was heard and consensus was reached rather than a majority imposing its will.

To ensure that government decisions were fair and equitable, Lumen relied on a group of mediators, known as the ‘Mediators of Harmony’. These individuals were selected for their ability to remain calm and seek peaceful solutions to disputes or conflicts. They acted as facilitators in the Open Assembly and in government decisions, ensuring that solutions were not only practical, but also reflected the values of peace, equity and justice.

In addition to the Open Assembly, Lumen was organised into small Local Action Circles, which are community groups responsible for making decisions on day-to-day and local issues, such as the distribution of resources, the organisation of community events and the resolution of minor conflicts. These circles allowed for greater autonomy and participation of citizens in local decision-making, promoting a sense of responsibility and ownership.

A Consensus System was developed in Lumen. Decisions were not taken by simple majority, but by a consensus. This meant that all members of the community had to reach a common agreement before an important decision was taken. This approach was intended to ensure that all voices were heard and that the decisions reflected the collective interest, avoiding the imposition of one party's will on another. If consensus could not be reached, further discussions and deliberations were held until a solution which everyone was satisfied with was reached.

The three boys loved being part of these Assemblies and understanding the inside functioning of Lumen. All three were very happy to belong to this society and were sure that nothing would ever break the harmony of Lumen, as they were its guardians. They lived happily with their families, or what in Lumen is understood as family. In this city the notion of family extends beyond blood ties. Citizens understand that the raising and education of children is not only the responsibility of the biological parents, but of the whole community. Therefore, children grow up surrounded by a wide circle of supportive and guiding adults, from grandparents to neighbours, creating a sense of collective belonging. To reinforce this loyalty to your family, every year the ‘Ritual of the Stones’ was celebrated. It was customary for all members of the family—biological or adoptive—to get together to discuss the past year, share achievements and challenges, and reinforce the relationships that unite them. Small tokens known as "Commitment Stones," which symbolized each family member's dedication to the group's overall welfare, were presented during the event. On their tenth birthday, the youngest family member was required to make this offering. It was Elios' younger brother's turn this year.

Elios was very excited about this fact, he had been waiting for this moment for years. For him, his little brother was everything he had, he raised him as if he was his own son. He taught him everything he needed to know about peace, harmony and love for others and he couldn't wait for his brother to do the sacred ritual. He remembered when it was his turn to do it, and he would never forget the moment he handed the stone to his grandfather. He wanted the experience for his brother to be the same or even better. Moreover, this year it would be even more special because the ritual would take place on the same day as The Feast of Harmony, Lumen's National Holiday, which he and his friends had the honour of preparing this year.

While the preparations for the party were keeping the guardians busy, a new group of kids arrived in town. They passed unnoticed among the good citizens of Lumen who, engrossed in the harmony and peace, did not realise the danger they were about to face. These boys were The Defiant. The members of the group were called Xera, Varys and Korra. These kids were lost kids, kids who after challenging the harmony and peace of other cities, were banished from them and forced to wander in the desert that separated the different cities. Forgotten and abandoned by their families, for them there was no such thing as a perfect society. Harmony, peace and justice seemed to them like a fantasy story and so, in their words, they wanted to open people's eyes, to make them realise that the government was controlling them by offering them a false sense of power. In the narrator's words, they wanted to destroy the systems from within so that no one else could live in harmony, peace and justice.

The group included Xera, the leader of the Defiant, Varys, an expert strategist, and Korra, the vigilante. All three boys hailed from the city of Cambria. They believed that the stability of Solaria had suffocated progress. Too much harmony had stopped innovation and personal growth. They believed that ambition and competition were necessary for humanity to advance. To this end, they had a well-organised plan to spread doubts among the people of Lumen. With this, they would gradually make the people acknowledge the reality and destroy the ‘perfect’ system. They would start this plan at the Harmony Party, where the whole city would gather.

The big day arrived. Elios, Lira and Tarin were preparing for the two most important celebrations of the year. They had worked hard to keep Lumen's values intact this year and the city had decided to honour them at the Harmony Festival as well. Thrilled, happy and excited, they arrived at the central square of the city where everyone was waiting for them. They greeted everyone and then the dancing, singing and games began. Food and drink were not to be missed either.

Meanwhile, the Defiant also arrived at the party. Once there, they split up and began their plan. During the previous days, the boys had been leaving a series of speeches and secret propaganda in the mailboxes of certain people they had already studied, people who had already shown a certain dissatisfaction with the system. They were the first to be approached by the Defiant.

Xera argued that the absence of competition and constant cooperation in Lumen had led to a lazy and conformist society, where true ambition and the desire to improve had disappeared. Varys, for the other hand, spread the idea that the peace experienced in Lumen was an illusion.Society had discovered ways to avoid issues rather than face conflict and disagreements directly, which had only resulted in a fragile and superficial peace.

Korra, finally, introduced the notion that Lumen had made people equal, but at the cost of their authenticity and individual growth. He argued that justice had established a system where everyone was treated equally, but people's true abilities and talents were not sufficiently valued. Instead of a world where differences were celebrated, Lumen had created a culture of mediocrity, where no one person stood out more than another. She also promoted a new idea, the exaltation of differences, where individual achievements were to be visibly rewarded, promoting a system that recognised the exceptional abilities of each individual.

In doing so, Xera's followers began to organise secret activities that challenged the peaceful norms of Lumen, engaging in clandestine games and competitions that destabilised the harmonious coexistence. Varys convinced several mediators of harmony that true peace would only be achieved when citizens confronted their differences and fought openly for their beliefs. Under this influence, small tensions began to emerge between communities that had never before challenged each other.

The impact of The Defiant was soon felt. The communities of Lumen began to experience a gradual breakdown of harmony. Xera's secret competitive games caused cooperative relationships to become tense. The mistrust created by Varys led to divisions between different groups that, prior to this influence, had been united in peace. And Korra's ideas of blended inequality began to gain support among those who felt their talents were not being recognised.

In the face of the tremendous commotion, certain sectors of society were very concerned about the danger to the values of Lumen. They brought together in an Open Assembly those responsible for maintaining the balance of Lumen, among them were our guardians. When it was Elios' turn to speak, he warned that it was normal that sometimes people would have different ideas but that they did not have to worry about anything, as the citizens of Lumen were wise and would know how to return to the path of balance. This reassured the mediators of harmony, but without much confidence, they put the three guardians in charge of restoring the balance.

Over the months, far from decreasing, the number of people who began to take a critical view of the Lumen system increased. It came to the point where a new movement contrary to the ideals of the city of Lumen, the Individual Freedom Movement, gained power, including several mediators of harmony in its ranks. At the Open Assembly in June 2300, they presented their thoughts to the astonished looks of the guardians. Among their thoughts were the creation of spaces where conflict is welcomed and managed openly, without the need for hiding or avoiding it. Leaders like Korra pushed this ideology, promoting a vision where people could have more freedom to pursue their own interests without being so constrained by the collective needs of society.

Lumen became divided as a result of this movement, with some members of the population standing up for a greater individual freedom at the expense of the wider community. The belief that harmony could only exist if everyone made sacrifices for the common good was called into question when the conflicts between individual rights and the general welfare turned into a philosophical and political dispute.

One of the guards, Lira, was among the group of people who started raising concerns. She had dedicated her entire life to preserving the principles that her community had taught her, fighting for harmony and communication in which all people were treated with respect and felt listened. Looking at this new situation, she really began to think about new ideas that she had never thought about before. Lira began to reflect on the need for a peace that is not just based on the absence of conflict, but on true equity and the inclusion of all voices, even those that challenge the status quo. In her moments of meditation, she asked: ‘Is harmony really possible if the dissonant voices are never heard, if the deep problems of society are ignored for the sake of apparent unity? Even if she already felt this way, she kept it from her friends.

Still feeling strange, Lira turned to the call of her friends, the guardians, who, faced with the tremendous commotion and not knowing what to do, turned to Thalia, the guardian of knowledge, Lumen's mentor and advisor. She was a wise old woman, known for her vast understanding of Lumen's history and her ability to teach the younger generation. She was one of the first to help create the structure of the society, and her role had always been to ensure that the values of harmony, peace and justice were not forgotten over time. Although her wisdom was unimaginable, her age and her emotional distance from the youth of Lumen sometimes made her feel that her vision was outdated. She often faced uncertainty as to whether society had moved too far forward and away from its original principles.

The guardians explained to Thalia everything that had happened in the last few months. Unlike the horrified and worried expressions of the guardians, she was not surprised at all. In her 103 years, it was not the first time she had seen something like this. She was well aware that maintaining the values of harmony, peace and justice and having them work perfectly within a society was not easy. She had seen it herself on other occasions with other groups of Defiant who came to the city with the desire to wreak havoc. She explained to them past situations and how they had often tried to disrupt the harmony of things. A talk that served to reinforce Lira's vision above all, who again reminded them of the importance of keeping core values alive. Elder Thalia's teachings from the past illuminated the path of the guardians, who found solutions to deal with the ‘chaos’ of the challengers.

They knew that each of the antagonists represented a side of the challenges associated with any ideal society, but they also understood that they had to act with caution, because a direct confrontation could destroy what Lumen had built. The guardians held an assembly, this time a private one, of the founding members of the Individual Freedom Movement. There, the guardians spoke to the three Defiant in an attempt to bring them to their senses.

Elios explained to Xera the real meaning of competition by using his talent to harmonize nature. He demonstrated to her how uncontrolled ambition, lacking teamwork and respect for one another, might ruin the social peace. However, Lira clarified that genuine peace resulted from the fair and equitable resolution of conflicts rather than their absence. She showed how conflict does not have to be destructive if it is approached with compassion and open communication. Finally, Tarin showed that, while individual differences are important, true justice is not about rewarding some over others, but about ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities to develop. He explained that equality did not mean homogeneity, but the creation of a system where each individual could reach their full potential, regardless of their natural abilities or talents.

After debating for 3 and a half days, the members of the Individual Freedom Movement and the guardians decided to set a day for a new Open Assembly, where all these issues would be debated and discussed by the people. Elios, together with Xera, stood at the central stand where everyone could listen to them. Elios was very nervous, as this day could dictate the future of his beloved city. He looked down and saw that all his family and community were there, waiting to see what would happen. But what calmed him the most, and at the same time filled him with strength, was to see his little brother. Are the values he grew up with really ideal and perfect, or did he have to be open to listen to certain changes that could make the lives of the citizens of Lumen better? The silent doubt was beginning to creep into him.

The assembly discussed a number of challenges that Lumen would have to face in the future. Among them, the challenge of maintaining peace without losing resilience, inequality in the distribution of resources or the implementation of education in a non-conflict society. The proposal for the latter was made by Vela, an elderly mediator who specialised in resolving disputes between the inhabitants of Lumen, from family disagreements to small community disputes. Her gift for understanding other people's emotions made her an invaluable resource for keeping the peace. However, she faced an internal crisis. As Lumen's society became more homogeneous and stable, she began to wonder if her role was less important. She often felt frustrated that conflicts had been reduced to minor issues and was afraid that her ability was not as relevant as before. This reflected the existential dilemmas that can arise in a society where conflict seems to have disappeared. This led to a question in the Assembly as to whether peace is more than simply the absence of disputes.

At the end of the debate, there was a breath of fresh air in the air. As they opened the door of the Assembly and stepped back out onto the street, the light from the Kirk satellite shone brightly overhead, creating a welcoming, bright and cheerful atmosphere for the inhabitants. New beginnings and processes of change were on the horizon for these citizens.

It had been decided to go for a change, a new society but based on the old fundamental values on which Lumen had been built. Finally, the Harmony Council decided, by consensus, to open this space for debate, allowing the established norms to be questioned. It was the first step towards a society that, although still perfect in its form, now allows itself to be constantly questioned and transformed. Through this process of reflection and change, Solaria began to understand that true harmony is not a static state, but a continuous process of learning and growth. Citizens no longer feared disagreements, but saw them as opportunities to improve their society.

Lumen reveals an uncomfortable truth: even in a world that seems perfect, there are always elements of doubt, conflict and discontent. Peace, harmony and justice are noble ideals, but the characters show us that their implementation is never perfect or easy. The doubts of Lira, Elios and Vela open a window into reflection on their own beliefs: is peace true if disagreement is not allowed? Is justice a concept that is only achieved in conformity, or is it in the constant struggle for the common good, even if this means confronting ourselves and others? Are we willing to challenge our beliefs and the status quo for a better future?

In Solaria, as in the real world, peace and justice are not something that is achieved once and forever. They are principles that must be constantly defended and challenged, so that they remain real and not just a comfortable illusion.

In the end, the guardians managed to convince the Defiant that instead of sowing mistrust, Solaria should face challenges collectively, learning from their differences rather than confronting them. They promised that together, they would look for ways to encourage innovation without losing balance with the environment and cooperation among citizens. The Defiant accepted and became full citizens of Lumen. They stopped wandering the deserts in search of creating chaos, because they understood that being part of a community and working and fighting for it was much more fulfilling and much happier.

From that day on, the day of The Feast of Harmony changed the date to the day when Lumen accepted that their principles of harmony, peace and justice could have different meanings and that discussing them was indispensable to advance them and not to lose them.

== LUMEN VS DIFFERENT HISTORICAL UTOPIAS AND DYSTOPIAS ==
A story is a fiction about something we would like to happen, a fantasy about a world without social classes, social justice, where people simply do not have to survive but to live.

'''Utopia,''' in this way, is understood as two things: firstly, the ‘desirable plan, project, doctrine or system that seems very difficult to realise’ and secondly, the ‘imaginative representation of a future society with characteristics that favour the human good’, that is, a society so perfect and idealised that it is practically impossible to reach it (Real Academia Española, n.d.).

A '''dystopia''' or anti-utopia is a fictional society that is undesirable in itself. The term, derived from Greek, was created by John Stuart Mill in the late 19th century as a direct antonym of utopia, which in turn was coined by St Thomas More and is the title of his best-known work, published in 1516, in which he describes a model for an ideal society with minimal levels of crime, violence and poverty (Wikipedia contributors, 2024a).

Despite being a history of our own, utopias and dystopias are concepts that have a long history. Authors such as Plato, in ''The Republic'' (ca. 380 BC), describe ideal societies, in this case, governed by philosopher-kings, where justice and social harmony are the fundamental pillars. Thomas More, in his work ''Utopia'' (1516), gives his name to the genre by imagining an island with a perfect political and social system, which indirectly criticises the problems of Renaissance Europe. Francis Bacon, for his part, in ''The New Atlantis'' (1627), presents an ideal society based on scientific knowledge and collaboration for human progress. Later, Edward Bellamy, in ''Looking Backwards: 2000-1887'' (1888), envisions a socialist future where economic and social inequalities have been eliminated.

In the field of dystopias, authors such as George Orwell, with ''1984'' (1949), make a fierce criticism of totalitarianism, showing a world of constant surveillance and manipulation of thought. Aldous Huxley, in ''Brave New World'' (1932), posits a technocratic dystopia where pleasure and mass consumption replace individual freedom. Ray Bradbury, with ''Fahrenheit 451'' (1953), describes a society in which books are banned, and ignorance and superficial entertainment are used as tools of control. Margaret Atwood, in ''The Handmaid's Tale'' (1985), creates a theocratic and misogynistic dystopia where women are deprived of fundamental rights.

Yevgeny Zamiatin, author of ''We'' (1920), conceives one of the first modern dystopias, set in a world where individuality is completely subordinated to the state. On the other hand, Philip K. Dick, in ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'' (1968), explores a dystopian future in which the boundaries between humans and machines are blurred, questioning concepts such as identity and humanity.

Authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin, in ''The Dispossessed'' (1974), combines both approaches by narrating the story of two opposing worlds: one capitalist and the other anarchist, examining both utopian ideals and their limits. H.G. Wells, too, with ''A Modern Utopia'' (1905), examines how a utopia could work in practice, although he also wrote dystopias such as ''The Time Machine'' (1895).

These works, by both utopian and dystopian authors, have not only defined their respective genres, but have also profoundly influenced how we imagine, question and critique human societies.

There has been an evolution of these same terms, adapting to the advances and needs of the society of the moment. They all have in common that the main basis is a critique of the society of the moment. We could even consider it an escape from it, a way of coping with it. Thanks to this evolution, the classification of utopian societies would be as follows: political and historical utopia, economic utopia, technological utopia, ecological utopia and religious or spiritual utopia (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b).

Although following the classification of utopias underlying the ideals of the Information Society, discussed in the presentation of the course, there are six families of utopias: Computable Language, Computable Thought, Unlimited Availability of Knowledge, Computable Social Order (Normalization), Communication without borders, and Security vs Trust of the Information Society.

In this case, our history is framed within the concept of ''Computable Social Order'', as it idealises a just, egalitarian and equitable society. This framework allows for a more systematic analysis of our history with historical utopias and dystopias, facilitating the identification of common patterns and significant differences in how these visions of the future have been conceived.

Nicholas de Cusa (1401-1464), a German Renaissance philosopher, theologian and mathematician, did not explicitly propose a utopia in the modern sense of the term, but his ideas can be interpreted as the foundations of a ‘computable social order’ in certain respects (Wikipedia contributors, 2024c). His thought was based on principles of harmony, equality and the search for an underlying unity in diversity, ideas that could be related to an ideal society regulated by rational principles. In his work ''De Concordantia Catholica'', Nicholas de Cusa (1433) advocates the active participation of communities in government, proposing a model where decisions are made collectively. This idea is consistent with our decision-making, reminding us of the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies where the voice of every citizen is important, where consensus is sought, because following Cusa (1440) in his work ''De Docta Ignorantia'', the recognition of universal ‘ignorance’ fosters intellectual equality among human beings, which can be translated into the idea of a just society where no one imposes his or her vision in an absolute way.

We can see how rational principles not only govern Nicholas de Cusa's stories, but, in our invented utopian society (Lumen), they also constitute the central axis around which the entire social order is organised. In this idealised society, the values of reason and justice are systematically applied to all aspects of everyday life, from political decision-making to economic and social structure.

In our utopia, rationality not only guides individual thinking, but becomes the organising principle of the community. As in the works of Cusa, where the search for universal harmony is key, in our society collective decisions are based on a rational understanding of the needs and desires of individuals. Every action and every policy is based on a logical analysis that seeks to balance personal interests with the collective welfare, following the idea that justice is the perfect balance between all components of society.

The social structure of this utopia reflects the Cusa’s vision of unity in diversity: decisions are made that take into account the multiple voices of society, optimising resources and ensuring that all members receive what they need to reach their potential.

Cusa's (1440) ''Docta Ignorantia'', which underlines the limitation of human knowledge, is also reflected in our utopian society. Instead of claiming to possess absolute truth, an attitude of openness and intellectual humility is encouraged, in which individuals recognise the limitations of their understanding and constantly seek dialogue and collective improvement. In this context, education focuses not only on the acquisition of knowledge, but on the development of critical and reflective capacity, ensuring that decisions are made with a full awareness of their potential impact on society as a whole.

Moreover, in Lumen, all citizens have equal access to information and participation, helping to reduce power inequalities and ensuring that everyone can contribute to creating a common good for all.

The rational principles that guide our society come not only from the philosophical ideas of Nicholas de Cusa, but are also part of a system that ensures that justice, equality and reason are not just abstract ideas, but real principles that underpin the social order. Thus, in this ideal world, the decisions and organisation of society are designed to improve the lives of all people, creating a more just and balanced community.

Leaving aside the similarities with historical utopia, we want to compare it with dystopias such as Huxley's (2006) ''Brave New World'' and Deleuze's (1992) ''Control society.''

Comparing the three societies, we clearly see the differences in the way power and social control are organised, as well as collective well-being. Each of these societies presents a different vision of how technology and social structures influence people's lives, but they all have very different ideas about control, freedom and happiness.

In Huxley's (2006) ''Brave New World'', social control is totalitarian and carried out in subtle ways. People are conditioned from birth to fit into a pre-established place in society. In this world, there is no freedom to question the system, as genetic manipulation and the use of a drug called soma ensure that everyone is happy with their role. Happiness is guaranteed, but it is artificial, and deep human emotions, such as love or frustration, are eliminated. On the other hand, in Deleuze's (1992) ''control society'', control is less obvious but more extensive. Instead of direct control over people, power is dispersed through technology and data collection. Individuals' decisions are constantly influenced, but in ways they do not notice, creating an illusion of freedom. In this way, although individuals believe they are in control of their lives, in reality they are being manipulated by economic and technological systems.

In Lumen, the difference is clear. Here there is no constant control or manipulation. Society is based on the '''active participation''' of people, who have the power to influence collective decisions. People are '''autonomous''' and not conditioned by external forces. Instead of being constantly watched or manipulated by technology, citizens have equal access to '''information''', enabling them to make conscious and responsible decisions. Society is organised '''democratically''', where everyone can actively influence the creation of the common good.

When we talk about '''freedom''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006) there is no real freedom. People cannot choose their destiny, as everything is predetermined by the system. In ''The Control Society'' (Deleuze, 1992), although people believe they are free, in reality their freedom is limited by the invisible influences of data and technological systems. Freedom appears to be present, but in reality it is manipulated by the systems that control information. In our utopia, freedom is real. Individuals have the ability to make decisions without being conditioned by external forces. '''Individual autonomy''' is respected, and collective decisions are made fairly and democratically, ensuring that everyone can influence the organisation of society.

Finally, as for '''collective well-being''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006) it is achieved through uniformity and total control. Although the society appears stable and happy, in reality it is superficial, as everyone must conform and has no room for suffering or diversity of emotions. Justice in this society is focused on maintaining order, regardless of the human costs. In Deleuze's (2006) ''control society'', welfare is also efficiently managed, but again it is conditioned by technological manipulation. Although there appears to be a collective welfare, in reality it is based on the management of individuals through their data. In Lumen, collective welfare is achieved through '''equity and social justice'''. Everyone has access to the resources necessary to develop their potential, and decisions are made for the common good, always respecting the autonomy of each person.

== CONCLUSION ==
In short, the main similarity and difference lies in what is meant by collective welfare in our history and the idea of working towards the betterment of society as a whole (as we accept people's discontent and improve for it) and not fight against the people. A more modern, progressive view of collective welfare focuses on fighting for and with the people, actively listening to their concerns and making changes to create a better, more just society.

When we talk about collective welfare today, it's rooted in the idea that society must be flexible, fair, and equitable. This means creating opportunities for everyone, regardless of their background, to thrive. A key aspect of this is understanding the importance of fairness and justice in policy-making. Society must work towards an egalitarian system where no one is left behind, and where the voices of all people are heard and considered in the decisions that shape their lives.

One crucial point is that we cannot progress without reflecting on our past. By acknowledging the mistakes we've made, we can learn from them and avoid repeating them. This reflection is vital for growth, whether on a personal level or in the development of society as a whole. If we ignore the lessons of history, we risk falling into the same traps that have hindered progress before.

In short, the journey towards collective welfare involves creating a society that listens to its people, learns from its mistakes, and works continuously to ensure fairness, equality, and justice for all. Without such a commitment, we would be doomed to repeat the errors of the past. With Lumen, its governmental organisation and its inherent values that are passed on generationally, we believe we cover those aspects.

The realisation of this work, taking up what has been said above about how it is a critique of today's society, has led us to learn about the social utility of a utopian story: to reflect on society and its shortcomings. Utopias and dystopias not only present us with visions of ideal or terrifying futures, but can act as mirrors that allow us to see, in a clear way, the problems and dangers inherent in our current realities. In this sense, both utopias and dystopias are powerful tools for social critique, as they invite us to question our political structures, our beliefs and our way of life.

Utopias, while idealising a perfect future, are deeply rooted in the social concerns of the moment in which they are conceived. They are often born as direct responses to the problems a society faces. A clear example of this is Thomas More's ''Utopia'', which dates from the 16th century. His work, ''Utopia'' (More, 1516), reflects a strong desire to resolve the social injustices of his time, such as poverty and corruption. In the society More describes, resources are shared equally, and people work together for the common good, eliminating social divisions and inequalities. This is not just an idealised vision of the future, but a direct critique of the social and political structures of Renaissance Europe, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, while the majority suffered the consequences of an unjust system.

Today, contemporary utopias (of which ours is one) follow this same pattern, but address more contemporary social and environmental problems, such as growing economic inequality, racial discrimination, and extreme poverty. Modern utopias often focus on creating a more just and equitable world, where all individuals have access to essential resources such as education, health and decent work. In this way, contemporary utopias are not only dreams of perfection, but also responses to the global challenges we face today, offering alternatives for a more sustainable and just future.

Despite their idealistic character, utopias also reveal the limitations of current systems. They show us what we could achieve if we work together and commit to values of fairness and justice, but they also warn us about the difficulties inherent in realising a perfect society. This is where dystopias come into play, serving as a counterpoint that warns of the dangers of inaction. Dystopias do not present us with desirable futures, but with pessimistic ones. They show us what might happen if we fail to address the problems of the present effectively, and if our aspirations for social justice and progress drift towards authoritarianism, total control or dehumanisation. Dystopias, rather than offering a solution, function as social warnings. They show us futures where the social and political problems we face today, such as oppression, discrimination and inequality, have been exacerbated to unsustainable limits.

This relationship between utopia and dystopia, far from being a contradiction, invites us to question our own realities and to reflect on the choices we make as a society. If we are not vigilant, we run the risk of falling into the same mistakes of the past, seeking perfection at the expense of our freedom and diversity. However, if we learn from the lessons of history and continue to strive for a more just society, we can prevent our ideals from becoming tools of oppression. In this way, utopias and dystopias ultimately serve as powerful reminders of the need to constantly reflect on what we want to build as a society, without losing sight of the dangers of over-centralisation of power and loss of individual autonomy.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Atwood, M. (1985). ''El cuento de la criada''.

Bacon, F. (1627). ''La Nueva Atlántida''.

Bellamy, E. (1888). ''Mirando hacia atrás: 2000-1887''.

Bradbury, R. (1953). ''Fahrenheit 451''.

Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. ''October, 59'', 3–7.

Dick, P. K. (1968). ''¿Sueñan los androides con ovejas eléctricas?''.

Huxley, A. (1932). ''Un mundo feliz''.

Huxley, A. (2006). ''Brave new world'' (Reprint edition). Harper Perennial Modern Classics. (Original work published 1932).

Le Guin, U. K. (1974). ''Los desposeídos''.

More, T. (1516). ''Utopia''.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1433). ''De concordantia catholica''.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1440). ''De docta ignorantia''.

Orwell, G. (1949). ''1984''.

Platón. (ca. 380 a.C.). ''La República''.

Real Academia Española. (n.d.). ''Utopía''. En Diccionario de la lengua española (23rd ed.). Retrieved from [https://dle.rae.es/utop%C3%ADa]

Wells, H. G. (1905). ''Una utopía moderna''.

Wikipedia contributors. (2024a, December 19). Dystopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 12:01, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dystopia&oldid=1263860704]

Wikipedia contributors. (2024b, October 22). Utopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:54, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&oldid=1252700236]

Wikipedia contributors. (2024c, September 7). Nicholas of Cusa. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:53, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_of_Cusa&oldid=1244461138]

Zamiatin, Y. (1920). ''Nosotros''.

Draft:Lumen

2024-12-29T19:56:09Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES */

== OUR OWN UTOPIA STORY ==
In the distant age of harmony, long before man forgot the principles of equity, there was a place where dreams of equality, liberty and fraternity were not just abstract ideals, but a palpable reality. That place was called Lumen, a city that knew no darkness, neither physical nor moral, as its inhabitants, guided by deep principles of cooperation, love and justice, lived in perfect balance.

Lumen was no ordinary city, it was the product of years of ethical evolution, a civilisation that, after many falls and rebuildings, had come to understand the importance of living without distinction. There was no poverty or wealth; hunger had been eradicated long before the new generations were born. People were not defined by money, power or lineage; they were defined by their ability to share, listen and contribute to collective well-being.

The creation of Lumen had originated centuries ago, in a time of great divisions. The ancient inhabitants of the world lived in societies where gold, power and influence dictated the fate of people. Starvation and inequality were common, and wars over resources were frequent. But a small group of visionaries began to work on a revolutionary idea: if all human beings had access to the same things and no one was above another, what would the world be like?

Over time, this group managed to build Lumen, a city that functioned on a fundamental principle: ‘The welfare of all is the welfare of one’.

Lumen is situated in the center of Solaria, a vast area known for its beautiful, rich landscapes and warm climate. The city is situated at the merging of two significant rivers that flow down from the highlands, surrounded by vast deserts and breathtaking mountain ranges. These rivers, which converge near the city, provide a steady water supply and contribute to the city’s agricultural abundance. The position of Lumen allows it to maintain a strategic advantage, offering access to both the natural resources from the mountains and the fertile lands of the river valleys.

The city’s geolocation places it in a zone of moderate elevation, ensuring a balance between the extremes of high-altitude climates and the harshness of the low desert plains. The surrounding hills provide a natural buffer against harsh winds, creating a microclimate that promotes year-round growth of plants, trees, and crops. The area is sheltered enough to encourage the flourishing of both urban and natural ecosystems, making it a haven for biodiversity. The nearby mountains also serve as a spiritual symbol, as they stand tall on the horizon, embodying the aspirations of Lumen’s citizens for stability and endurance.

Lumen’s position between the desert and mountain ranges also ensures that it remains somewhat isolated from the surrounding cities, which gives it a unique cultural and political identity. This geographical separation allows Lumen to maintain its ideals of peace, harmony, and justice without much external influence. However, it is not completely isolated from the rest of Solaria, as the city is connected to nearby areas by well-maintained roads and bridges, facilitating transit, trade, and cultural exchange. These relationships ensure that Lumen's residents stay aware and involved with the outside world by promoting a balance between independence and openness to outside influences.

The city is located strategically next to the Kirk satellite, an advanced technological device that circles over Lumen. In addition to being a representation of Lumen's link to the wider universe, this satellite also serves a functional purpose by controlling the city's technological and communications system. The satellite’s influence reaches down into the city, maintaining a constant connection with other regions and reinforcing Lumen’s ideal of interconnectedness. This unique positioning of Lumen at the confluence of natural beauty, strategic isolation, and technological advancement shapes its identity and guides the lives of its people.

The city of Lumen is a symbol of the delicate balance between human innovation and nature. Its architecture blends perfectly with its surroundings, a structure built on the principles of justice, harmony and peace.

Smooth stones in the shape of river stones, transparent glass walls that reflect the vast sky, and wood from trees carefully grown to blend in with the environment are some of the materials used to construct the buildings in Lumen. The open and flowing design of the buildings, often with curved lines that mimic the gentle flow of nature, and their green, plant-filled roofs help to create a sense of continuity between the natural and artificial worlds.

The town's central square, where the traditional festivities are held, is large and open, lined with large circular stone pavers that resemble ripples in a pond, symbolising the spread of peaceful influence. Trees, their branches arching gracefully, provide shade and shelter, and fountains of clear, flowing water add to the tranquil atmosphere. In the distance, the majestic Kirk satellite can be seen in the sky, a symbol of the city’s connection to the cosmos and a reminder of the importance of balance between the Earth and the stars.

The natural surroundings of Lumen are as harmonious as the city itself. Large fields of golden grass stretch out in every direction, blowing in the breeze, while gently rounded hills are dotted with colourful wildflowers that change with the seasons. Forests of tall, slim trees, their trunks pale and almost luminous, offer peaceful groves where citizens come to meditate, find comfort or simply enjoy the quiet beauty of nature. These groves, carefully protected, are sacred spaces where harmony is sought through tranquillity and reflection.

Another distinctive aspect of Lumen's geography are its rivers, which flow through the city like veins. The waters are crystal clear, flowing steadily but slowly, and never losing their serenity. These rivers are crossed by little bridges with decorative railings that link different areas of the city and highlight the notion that even the smallest acts of collaboration may bring people together.

In this peaceful world, every building, every tree, and every river seems to have been placed with a purpose, creating a city that is both a physical and philosophical representation of harmony and balance.

In Lumen, there was no distinction between rich and poor. Social classes had long since been eradicated. Every inhabitant, from the youngest to the oldest, had access to the same resources: education, health, food and welfare. The work system was different from the old cities. Here, work was not an obligation to survive, but a voluntary activity aimed at contributing to the common good. There was no economic pressure, and people chose to do what they were passionate about. Workers, scientists, artists and philosophers shared their wisdom and skills, working side by side for a common goal.

Advanced technology, the result of shared effort, allowed basic needs to be met automatically. Energy was renewable, obtained from natural sources such as wind, sun and water. The houses were self-sufficient, built with recycled and biocompatible materials. Instead of being simple residences, the homes were small ecosystems where inhabitants grew their own food and recycled everything they used.

Access to education was universal and free. From an early age, children learned about human history, its mistakes and achievements, and how to work together to create a better future. Teaching was not aimed at gaining qualifications or skills to compete, but at strengthening character, empathy and collaboration.

People in this city reside in cooperative communities known as "support clusters," where they share resources and duties. In addition to guiding legislation, the principles of justice, peace, and harmony serve as the cornerstone of human interactions. The idea of home transcends biological relationships, and families come in a variety of forms. Children are raised in settings where their education and general well-being are attended to by the entire community in addition to their parents.

In this city, there was a very special group of friends. Among them were Elios, Lira and Tarin. Elios was a young man with the unique ability to communicate with the elements of nature. Since childhood he had developed a deep connection with water, wind and earth. He could make forests grow, calm storms and purify rivers. His gift made him the protector of Lumen's ecosystems, teaching everyone to live in symbiosis with their environment. For him, harmony was essential, as he understood that the balance between man and nature was the basis of all progress. Alongside him was his great friend Lira, an expert mediator, born in the city of Serenity, where disputes between peoples were always resolved through dialogue and understanding. Her ability to listen and understand others made her a respected leader who never resorted to violence or coercion. Lira organised peace circles where all voices were heard, creating solutions that would benefit all, without anyone being oppressed or ignored. Finally, the third component of the trio of friends was Tarin, a former judge and defender of fairness. His task was not only to judge, but also to teach people about the importance of justice in a balanced society. With his firm but fair perspective, he had abolished all kinds of discrimination and corruption in Lumen. He understood that justice was not only about punishing injustices but securing that all inhabitants had the same access to resources and opportunities, without any distinctions.

The three friends shared a common neighborhood in Lumen, Lakua, where they devoted their days to ensuring Lumen's justice, harmony, and peace. They enjoyed going to the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies in their spare time, where all citizens were valued and had a say in the decision-making process, which was based on agreement. The population met once a month through the Open Assemblies to talk about significant concerns, always looking for peaceful and inclusive solutions. Lumen arranged its governmental structure as follows:

Lumen's governmental structure was based on a council composed of representatives from different sectors of society: workers, educators, scientists, artists, elders and youth. This council, known as the Harmony Council, was responsible for making important decisions affecting the community. Council members were not elected by popular vote, but were selected for their commitment to Lumen's core values and their ability to mediate and make fair decisions.

Major decisions were made at the Open Assembly, a democratic forum where all citizens of Lumen had the right to make proposals, debate and vote on matters of collective interest. The Assembly was held every month, and decisions were taken by consensus. The active participation of citizens was crucial, as every voice was heard and consensus was reached rather than a majority imposing its will.

To ensure that government decisions were fair and equitable, Lumen relied on a group of mediators, known as the ‘Mediators of Harmony’. These individuals were selected for their ability to remain calm and seek peaceful solutions to disputes or conflicts. They acted as facilitators in the Open Assembly and in government decisions, ensuring that solutions were not only practical, but also reflected the values of peace, equity and justice.

In addition to the Open Assembly, Lumen was organised into small Local Action Circles, which are community groups responsible for making decisions on day-to-day and local issues, such as the distribution of resources, the organisation of community events and the resolution of minor conflicts. These circles allowed for greater autonomy and participation of citizens in local decision-making, promoting a sense of responsibility and ownership.

A Consensus System was developed in Lumen. Decisions were not taken by simple majority, but by a consensus. This meant that all members of the community had to reach a common agreement before an important decision was taken. This approach was intended to ensure that all voices were heard and that the decisions reflected the collective interest, avoiding the imposition of one party's will on another. If consensus could not be reached, further discussions and deliberations were held until a solution which everyone was satisfied with was reached.

The three boys loved being part of these Assemblies and understanding the inside functioning of Lumen. All three were very happy to belong to this society and were sure that nothing would ever break the harmony of Lumen, as they were its guardians. They lived happily with their families, or what in Lumen is understood as family. In this city the notion of family extends beyond blood ties. Citizens understand that the raising and education of children is not only the responsibility of the biological parents, but of the whole community. Therefore, children grow up surrounded by a wide circle of supportive and guiding adults, from grandparents to neighbours, creating a sense of collective belonging. To reinforce this loyalty to your family, every year the ‘Ritual of the Stones’ was celebrated. It was customary for all members of the family—biological or adoptive—to get together to discuss the past year, share achievements and challenges, and reinforce the relationships that unite them. Small tokens known as "Commitment Stones," which symbolized each family member's dedication to the group's overall welfare, were presented during the event. On their tenth birthday, the youngest family member was required to make this offering. It was Elios' younger brother's turn this year.

Elios was very excited about this fact, he had been waiting for this moment for years. For him, his little brother was everything he had, he raised him as if he was his own son. He taught him everything he needed to know about peace, harmony and love for others and he couldn't wait for his brother to do the sacred ritual. He remembered when it was his turn to do it, and he would never forget the moment he handed the stone to his grandfather. He wanted the experience for his brother to be the same or even better. Moreover, this year it would be even more special because the ritual would take place on the same day as The Feast of Harmony, Lumen's National Holiday, which he and his friends had the honour of preparing this year.

While the preparations for the party were keeping the guardians busy, a new group of kids arrived in town. They passed unnoticed among the good citizens of Lumen who, engrossed in the harmony and peace, did not realise the danger they were about to face. These boys were The Defiant. The members of the group were called Xera, Varys and Korra. These kids were lost kids, kids who after challenging the harmony and peace of other cities, were banished from them and forced to wander in the desert that separated the different cities. Forgotten and abandoned by their families, for them there was no such thing as a perfect society. Harmony, peace and justice seemed to them like a fantasy story and so, in their words, they wanted to open people's eyes, to make them realise that the government was controlling them by offering them a false sense of power. In the narrator's words, they wanted to destroy the systems from within so that no one else could live in harmony, peace and justice.

The group included Xera, the leader of the Defiant, Varys, an expert strategist, and Korra, the vigilante. All three boys hailed from the city of Cambria. They believed that the stability of Solaria had suffocated progress. Too much harmony had stopped innovation and personal growth. They believed that ambition and competition were necessary for humanity to advance. To this end, they had a well-organised plan to spread doubts among the people of Lumen. With this, they would gradually make the people acknowledge the reality and destroy the ‘perfect’ system. They would start this plan at the Harmony Party, where the whole city would gather.

The big day arrived. Elios, Lira and Tarin were preparing for the two most important celebrations of the year. They had worked hard to keep Lumen's values intact this year and the city had decided to honour them at the Harmony Festival as well. Thrilled, happy and excited, they arrived at the central square of the city where everyone was waiting for them. They greeted everyone and then the dancing, singing and games began. Food and drink were not to be missed either.

Meanwhile, the Defiant also arrived at the party. Once there, they split up and began their plan. During the previous days, the boys had been leaving a series of speeches and secret propaganda in the mailboxes of certain people they had already studied, people who had already shown a certain dissatisfaction with the system. They were the first to be approached by the Defiant.

Xera argued that the absence of competition and constant cooperation in Lumen had led to a lazy and conformist society, where true ambition and the desire to improve had disappeared. Varys, for the other hand, spread the idea that the peace experienced in Lumen was an illusion.Society had discovered ways to avoid issues rather than face conflict and disagreements directly, which had only resulted in a fragile and superficial peace.

Korra, finally, introduced the notion that Lumen had made people equal, but at the cost of their authenticity and individual growth. He argued that justice had established a system where everyone was treated equally, but people's true abilities and talents were not sufficiently valued. Instead of a world where differences were celebrated, Lumen had created a culture of mediocrity, where no one person stood out more than another. She also promoted a new idea, the exaltation of differences, where individual achievements were to be visibly rewarded, promoting a system that recognised the exceptional abilities of each individual.

In doing so, Xera's followers began to organise secret activities that challenged the peaceful norms of Lumen, engaging in clandestine games and competitions that destabilised the harmonious coexistence. Varys convinced several mediators of harmony that true peace would only be achieved when citizens confronted their differences and fought openly for their beliefs. Under this influence, small tensions began to emerge between communities that had never before challenged each other.

The impact of The Defiant was soon felt. The communities of Lumen began to experience a gradual breakdown of harmony. Xera's secret competitive games caused cooperative relationships to become tense. The mistrust created by Varys led to divisions between different groups that, prior to this influence, had been united in peace. And Korra's ideas of blended inequality began to gain support among those who felt their talents were not being recognised.

In the face of the tremendous commotion, certain sectors of society were very concerned about the danger to the values of Lumen. They brought together in an Open Assembly those responsible for maintaining the balance of Lumen, among them were our guardians. When it was Elios' turn to speak, he warned that it was normal that sometimes people would have different ideas but that they did not have to worry about anything, as the citizens of Lumen were wise and would know how to return to the path of balance. This reassured the mediators of harmony, but without much confidence, they put the three guardians in charge of restoring the balance.

Over the months, far from decreasing, the number of people who began to take a critical view of the Lumen system increased. It came to the point where a new movement contrary to the ideals of the city of Lumen, the Individual Freedom Movement, gained power, including several mediators of harmony in its ranks. At the Open Assembly in June 2300, they presented their thoughts to the astonished looks of the guardians. Among their thoughts were the creation of spaces where conflict is welcomed and managed openly, without the need for hiding or avoiding it. Leaders like Korra pushed this ideology, promoting a vision where people could have more freedom to pursue their own interests without being so constrained by the collective needs of society.

Lumen became divided as a result of this movement, with some members of the population standing up for a greater individual freedom at the expense of the wider community. The belief that harmony could only exist if everyone made sacrifices for the common good was called into question when the conflicts between individual rights and the general welfare turned into a philosophical and political dispute.

One of the guards, Lira, was among the group of people who started raising concerns. She had dedicated her entire life to preserving the principles that her community had taught her, fighting for harmony and communication in which all people were treated with respect and felt listened. Looking at this new situation, she really began to think about new ideas that she had never thought about before. Lira began to reflect on the need for a peace that is not just based on the absence of conflict, but on true equity and the inclusion of all voices, even those that challenge the status quo. In her moments of meditation, she asked: ‘Is harmony really possible if the dissonant voices are never heard, if the deep problems of society are ignored for the sake of apparent unity? Even if she already felt this way, she kept it from her friends.

Still feeling strange, Lira turned to the call of her friends, the guardians, who, faced with the tremendous commotion and not knowing what to do, turned to Thalia, the guardian of knowledge, Lumen's mentor and advisor. She was a wise old woman, known for her vast understanding of Lumen's history and her ability to teach the younger generation. She was one of the first to help create the structure of the society, and her role had always been to ensure that the values of harmony, peace and justice were not forgotten over time. Although her wisdom was unimaginable, her age and her emotional distance from the youth of Lumen sometimes made her feel that her vision was outdated. She often faced uncertainty as to whether society had moved too far forward and away from its original principles.

The guardians explained to Thalia everything that had happened in the last few months. Unlike the horrified and worried expressions of the guardians, she was not surprised at all. In her 103 years, it was not the first time she had seen something like this. She was well aware that maintaining the values of harmony, peace and justice and having them work perfectly within a society was not easy. She had seen it herself on other occasions with other groups of Defiant who came to the city with the desire to wreak havoc. She explained to them past situations and how they had often tried to disrupt the harmony of things. A talk that served to reinforce Lira's vision above all, who again reminded them of the importance of keeping core values alive. Elder Thalia's teachings from the past illuminated the path of the guardians, who found solutions to deal with the ‘chaos’ of the challengers.

They knew that each of the antagonists represented a side of the challenges associated with any ideal society, but they also understood that they had to act with caution, because a direct confrontation could destroy what Lumen had built. The guardians held an assembly, this time a private one, of the founding members of the Individual Freedom Movement. There, the guardians spoke to the three Defiant in an attempt to bring them to their senses.

Elios explained to Xera the real meaning of competition by using his talent to harmonize nature. He demonstrated to her how uncontrolled ambition, lacking teamwork and respect for one another, might ruin the social peace. However, Lira clarified that genuine peace resulted from the fair and equitable resolution of conflicts rather than their absence. She showed how conflict does not have to be destructive if it is approached with compassion and open communication. Finally, Tarin showed that, while individual differences are important, true justice is not about rewarding some over others, but about ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities to develop. He explained that equality did not mean homogeneity, but the creation of a system where each individual could reach their full potential, regardless of their natural abilities or talents.

After debating for 3 and a half days, the members of the Individual Freedom Movement and the guardians decided to set a day for a new Open Assembly, where all these issues would be debated and discussed by the people. Elios, together with Xera, stood at the central stand where everyone could listen to them. Elios was very nervous, as this day could dictate the future of his beloved city. He looked down and saw that all his family and community were there, waiting to see what would happen. But what calmed him the most, and at the same time filled him with strength, was to see his little brother. Are the values he grew up with really ideal and perfect, or did he have to be open to listen to certain changes that could make the lives of the citizens of Lumen better? The silent doubt was beginning to creep into him.

The assembly discussed a number of challenges that Lumen would have to face in the future. Among them, the challenge of maintaining peace without losing resilience, inequality in the distribution of resources or the implementation of education in a non-conflict society. The proposal for the latter was made by Vela, an elderly mediator who specialised in resolving disputes between the inhabitants of Lumen, from family disagreements to small community disputes. Her gift for understanding other people's emotions made her an invaluable resource for keeping the peace. However, she faced an internal crisis. As Lumen's society became more homogeneous and stable, she began to wonder if her role was less important. She often felt frustrated that conflicts had been reduced to minor issues and was afraid that her ability was not as relevant as before. This reflected the existential dilemmas that can arise in a society where conflict seems to have disappeared. This led to a question in the Assembly as to whether peace is more than simply the absence of disputes.

At the end of the debate, there was a breath of fresh air in the air. As they opened the door of the Assembly and stepped back out onto the street, the light from the Kirk satellite shone brightly overhead, creating a welcoming, bright and cheerful atmosphere for the inhabitants. New beginnings and processes of change were on the horizon for these citizens.

It had been decided to go for a change, a new society but based on the old fundamental values on which Lumen had been built. Finally, the Harmony Council decided, by consensus, to open this space for debate, allowing the established norms to be questioned. It was the first step towards a society that, although still perfect in its form, now allows itself to be constantly questioned and transformed. Through this process of reflection and change, Solaria began to understand that true harmony is not a static state, but a continuous process of learning and growth. Citizens no longer feared disagreements, but saw them as opportunities to improve their society.

Lumen reveals an uncomfortable truth: even in a world that seems perfect, there are always elements of doubt, conflict and discontent. Peace, harmony and justice are noble ideals, but the characters show us that their implementation is never perfect or easy. The doubts of Lira, Elios and Vela open a window into reflection on their own beliefs: is peace true if disagreement is not allowed? Is justice a concept that is only achieved in conformity, or is it in the constant struggle for the common good, even if this means confronting ourselves and others? Are we willing to challenge our beliefs and the status quo for a better future?

In Solaria, as in the real world, peace and justice are not something that is achieved once and forever. They are principles that must be constantly defended and challenged, so that they remain real and not just a comfortable illusion.

In the end, the guardians managed to convince the Defiant that instead of sowing mistrust, Solaria should face challenges collectively, learning from their differences rather than confronting them. They promised that together, they would look for ways to encourage innovation without losing balance with the environment and cooperation among citizens. The Defiant accepted and became full citizens of Lumen. They stopped wandering the deserts in search of creating chaos, because they understood that being part of a community and working and fighting for it was much more fulfilling and much happier.

From that day on, the day of The Feast of Harmony changed the date to the day when Lumen accepted that their principles of harmony, peace and justice could have different meanings and that discussing them was indispensable to advance them and not to lose them.

== LUMEN VS DIFFERENT HISTORICAL UTOPIAS AND DYSTOPIAS ==
A story is a fiction about something we would like to happen, a fantasy about a world without social classes, social justice, where people simply do not have to survive but to live.

'''Utopia,''' in this way, is understood as two things: firstly, the ‘desirable plan, project, doctrine or system that seems very difficult to realise’ and secondly, the ‘imaginative representation of a future society with characteristics that favour the human good’, that is, a society so perfect and idealised that it is practically impossible to reach it (Real Academia Española, n.d.).

A '''dystopia''' or anti-utopia is a fictional society that is undesirable in itself. The term, derived from Greek, was created by John Stuart Mill in the late 19th century as a direct antonym of utopia, which in turn was coined by St Thomas More and is the title of his best-known work, published in 1516, in which he describes a model for an ideal society with minimal levels of crime, violence and poverty (Wikipedia contributors, 2024a).

Despite being a history of our own, utopias and dystopias are concepts that have a long history. Authors such as Plato, in ''The Republic'' (ca. 380 BC), describe ideal societies, in this case, governed by philosopher-kings, where justice and social harmony are the fundamental pillars. Thomas More, in his work ''Utopia'' (1516), gives his name to the genre by imagining an island with a perfect political and social system, which indirectly criticises the problems of Renaissance Europe. Francis Bacon, for his part, in ''The New Atlantis'' (1627), presents an ideal society based on scientific knowledge and collaboration for human progress. Later, Edward Bellamy, in ''Looking Backwards: 2000-1887'' (1888), envisions a socialist future where economic and social inequalities have been eliminated.

In the field of dystopias, authors such as George Orwell, with ''1984'' (1949), make a fierce criticism of totalitarianism, showing a world of constant surveillance and manipulation of thought. Aldous Huxley, in ''Brave New World'' (1932), posits a technocratic dystopia where pleasure and mass consumption replace individual freedom. Ray Bradbury, with ''Fahrenheit 451'' (1953), describes a society in which books are banned, and ignorance and superficial entertainment are used as tools of control. Margaret Atwood, in ''The Handmaid's Tale'' (1985), creates a theocratic and misogynistic dystopia where women are deprived of fundamental rights.

Yevgeny Zamiatin, author of ''We'' (1920), conceives one of the first modern dystopias, set in a world where individuality is completely subordinated to the state. On the other hand, Philip K. Dick, in ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'' (1968), explores a dystopian future in which the boundaries between humans and machines are blurred, questioning concepts such as identity and humanity.

Authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin, in ''The Dispossessed'' (1974), combines both approaches by narrating the story of two opposing worlds: one capitalist and the other anarchist, examining both utopian ideals and their limits. H.G. Wells, too, with ''A Modern Utopia'' (1905), examines how a utopia could work in practice, although he also wrote dystopias such as ''The Time Machine'' (1895).

These works, by both utopian and dystopian authors, have not only defined their respective genres, but have also profoundly influenced how we imagine, question and critique human societies.

There has been an evolution of these same terms, adapting to the advances and needs of the society of the moment. They all have in common that the main basis is a critique of the society of the moment. We could even consider it an escape from it, a way of coping with it. Thanks to this evolution, the classification of utopian societies would be as follows: political and historical utopia, economic utopia, technological utopia, ecological utopia and religious or spiritual utopia (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b).

Although following the classification of utopias underlying the ideals of the Information Society, discussed in the presentation of the course, there are six families of utopias: Computable Language, Computable Thought, Unlimited Availability of Knowledge, Computable Social Order (Normalization), Communication without borders, and Security vs Trust of the Information Society.

In this case, our history is framed within the concept of ''Computable Social Order'', as it idealises a just, egalitarian and equitable society. This framework allows for a more systematic analysis of our history with historical utopias and dystopias, facilitating the identification of common patterns and significant differences in how these visions of the future have been conceived.

Nicholas de Cusa (1401-1464), a German Renaissance philosopher, theologian and mathematician, did not explicitly propose a utopia in the modern sense of the term, but his ideas can be interpreted as the foundations of a ‘computable social order’ in certain respects (Wikipedia contributors, 2024c). His thought was based on principles of harmony, equality and the search for an underlying unity in diversity, ideas that could be related to an ideal society regulated by rational principles. In his work ''De Concordantia Catholica'', Nicholas de Cusa (1433) advocates the active participation of communities in government, proposing a model where decisions are made collectively. This idea is consistent with our decision-making, reminding us of the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies where the voice of every citizen is important, where consensus is sought, because following Cusa (1440) in his work ''De Docta Ignorantia'', the recognition of universal ‘ignorance’ fosters intellectual equality among human beings, which can be translated into the idea of a just society where no one imposes his or her vision in an absolute way.

We can see how rational principles not only govern Nicholas de Cusa's stories, but, in our invented utopian society (Lumen), they also constitute the central axis around which the entire social order is organised. In this idealised society, the values of reason and justice are systematically applied to all aspects of everyday life, from political decision-making to economic and social structure.

In our utopia, rationality not only guides individual thinking, but becomes the organising principle of the community. As in the works of Cusa, where the search for universal harmony is key, in our society collective decisions are based on a rational understanding of the needs and desires of individuals. Every action and every policy is based on a logical analysis that seeks to balance personal interests with the collective welfare, following the idea that justice is the perfect balance between all components of society.

The social structure of this utopia reflects the Cusa’s vision of unity in diversity: decisions are made that take into account the multiple voices of society, optimising resources and ensuring that all members receive what they need to reach their potential.

Cusa's (1440) ''Docta Ignorantia'', which underlines the limitation of human knowledge, is also reflected in our utopian society. Instead of claiming to possess absolute truth, an attitude of openness and intellectual humility is encouraged, in which individuals recognise the limitations of their understanding and constantly seek dialogue and collective improvement. In this context, education focuses not only on the acquisition of knowledge, but on the development of critical and reflective capacity, ensuring that decisions are made with a full awareness of their potential impact on society as a whole.

Moreover, in Lumen, all citizens have equal access to information and participation, helping to reduce power inequalities and ensuring that everyone can contribute to creating a common good for all.

The rational principles that guide our society come not only from the philosophical ideas of Nicholas de Cusa, but are also part of a system that ensures that justice, equality and reason are not just abstract ideas, but real principles that underpin the social order. Thus, in this ideal world, the decisions and organisation of society are designed to improve the lives of all people, creating a more just and balanced community.

Leaving aside the similarities with historical utopia, we want to compare it with dystopias such as Huxley's (2006) ''Brave New World'' and Deleuze's (1992) ''Control society.''

Comparing the three societies, we clearly see the differences in the way power and social control are organised, as well as collective well-being. Each of these societies presents a different vision of how technology and social structures influence people's lives, but they all have very different ideas about control, freedom and happiness.

In Huxley's (2006) ''Brave New World'', social control is totalitarian and carried out in subtle ways. People are conditioned from birth to fit into a pre-established place in society. In this world, there is no freedom to question the system, as genetic manipulation and the use of a drug called soma ensure that everyone is happy with their role. Happiness is guaranteed, but it is artificial, and deep human emotions, such as love or frustration, are eliminated. On the other hand, in Deleuze's (1992) ''control society'', control is less obvious but more extensive. Instead of direct control over people, power is dispersed through technology and data collection. Individuals' decisions are constantly influenced, but in ways they do not notice, creating an illusion of freedom. In this way, although individuals believe they are in control of their lives, in reality they are being manipulated by economic and technological systems.

In Lumen, the difference is clear. Here there is no constant control or manipulation. Society is based on the '''active participation''' of people, who have the power to influence collective decisions. People are '''autonomous''' and not conditioned by external forces. Instead of being constantly watched or manipulated by technology, citizens have equal access to '''information''', enabling them to make conscious and responsible decisions. Society is organised '''democratically''', where everyone can actively influence the creation of the common good.

When we talk about '''freedom''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006) there is no real freedom. People cannot choose their destiny, as everything is predetermined by the system. In ''The Control Society'' (Deleuze, 1992), although people believe they are free, in reality their freedom is limited by the invisible influences of data and technological systems. Freedom appears to be present, but in reality it is manipulated by the systems that control information. In our utopia, freedom is real. Individuals have the ability to make decisions without being conditioned by external forces. '''Individual autonomy''' is respected, and collective decisions are made fairly and democratically, ensuring that everyone can influence the organisation of society.

Finally, as for '''collective well-being''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006) it is achieved through uniformity and total control. Although the society appears stable and happy, in reality it is superficial, as everyone must conform and has no room for suffering or diversity of emotions. Justice in this society is focused on maintaining order, regardless of the human costs. In Deleuze's (2006) ''control society'', welfare is also efficiently managed, but again it is conditioned by technological manipulation. Although there appears to be a collective welfare, in reality it is based on the management of individuals through their data. In Lumen, collective welfare is achieved through '''equity and social justice'''. Everyone has access to the resources necessary to develop their potential, and decisions are made for the common good, always respecting the autonomy of each person.

== CONCLUSION ==
In short, the main similarity and difference lies in what is meant by collective welfare in our history and the idea of working towards the betterment of society as a whole (as we accept people's discontent and improve for it) and not fight against the people. A more modern, progressive view of collective welfare focuses on fighting for and with the people, actively listening to their concerns and making changes to create a better, more just society.

When we talk about collective welfare today, it's rooted in the idea that society must be flexible, fair, and equitable. This means creating opportunities for everyone, regardless of their background, to thrive. A key aspect of this is understanding the importance of fairness and justice in policy-making. Society must work towards an egalitarian system where no one is left behind, and where the voices of all people are heard and considered in the decisions that shape their lives.

One crucial point is that we cannot progress without reflecting on our past. By acknowledging the mistakes we've made, we can learn from them and avoid repeating them. This reflection is vital for growth, whether on a personal level or in the development of society as a whole. If we ignore the lessons of history, we risk falling into the same traps that have hindered progress before.

In short, the journey towards collective welfare involves creating a society that listens to its people, learns from its mistakes, and works continuously to ensure fairness, equality, and justice for all. Without such a commitment, we would be doomed to repeat the errors of the past. With Lumen, its governmental organisation and its inherent values that are passed on generationally, we believe we cover those aspects.

The realisation of this work, taking up what has been said above about how it is a critique of today's society, has led us to learn about the social utility of a utopian story: to reflect on society and its shortcomings. Utopias and dystopias not only present us with visions of ideal or terrifying futures, but can act as mirrors that allow us to see, in a clear way, the problems and dangers inherent in our current realities. In this sense, both utopias and dystopias are powerful tools for social critique, as they invite us to question our political structures, our beliefs and our way of life.

Utopias, while idealising a perfect future, are deeply rooted in the social concerns of the moment in which they are conceived. They are often born as direct responses to the problems a society faces. A clear example of this is Thomas More's ''Utopia'', which dates from the 16th century. His work, ''Utopia'' (More, 1516), reflects a strong desire to resolve the social injustices of his time, such as poverty and corruption. In the society More describes, resources are shared equally, and people work together for the common good, eliminating social divisions and inequalities. This is not just an idealised vision of the future, but a direct critique of the social and political structures of Renaissance Europe, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, while the majority suffered the consequences of an unjust system.

Today, contemporary utopias (of which ours is one) follow this same pattern, but address more contemporary social and environmental problems, such as growing economic inequality, racial discrimination, and extreme poverty. Modern utopias often focus on creating a more just and equitable world, where all individuals have access to essential resources such as education, health and decent work. In this way, contemporary utopias are not only dreams of perfection, but also responses to the global challenges we face today, offering alternatives for a more sustainable and just future.

Despite their idealistic character, utopias also reveal the limitations of current systems. They show us what we could achieve if we work together and commit to values of fairness and justice, but they also warn us about the difficulties inherent in realising a perfect society. This is where dystopias come into play, serving as a counterpoint that warns of the dangers of inaction. Dystopias do not present us with desirable futures, but with pessimistic ones. They show us what might happen if we fail to address the problems of the present effectively, and if our aspirations for social justice and progress drift towards authoritarianism, total control or dehumanisation. Dystopias, rather than offering a solution, function as social warnings. They show us futures where the social and political problems we face today, such as oppression, discrimination and inequality, have been exacerbated to unsustainable limits.

This relationship between utopia and dystopia, far from being a contradiction, invites us to question our own realities and to reflect on the choices we make as a society. If we are not vigilant, we run the risk of falling into the same mistakes of the past, seeking perfection at the expense of our freedom and diversity. However, if we learn from the lessons of history and continue to strive for a more just society, we can prevent our ideals from becoming tools of oppression. In this way, utopias and dystopias ultimately serve as powerful reminders of the need to constantly reflect on what we want to build as a society, without losing sight of the dangers of over-centralisation of power and loss of individual autonomy.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Atwood, M. (1985). ''El cuento de la criada''.

Bacon, F. (1627). ''La Nueva Atlántida''.

Bellamy, E. (1888). ''Mirando hacia atrás: 2000-1887''.

Bradbury, R. (1953). ''Fahrenheit 451''.

Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. ''October, 59'', 3–7.

Dick, P. K. (1968). ''¿Sueñan los androides con ovejas eléctricas?''.

Huxley, A. (1932). ''Un mundo feliz''.

Huxley, A. (2006). ''Brave new world'' (Reprint edition). Harper Perennial Modern Classics. (Original work published 1932).

Le Guin, U. K. (1974). ''Los desposeídos''.

More, T. (1516). ''Utopia''.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1433). ''De concordantia catholica''.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1440). ''De docta ignorantia''.

Orwell, G. (1949). ''1984''.

Platón. (ca. 380 a.C.). ''La República''.

Real Academia Española. (n.d.). ''Utopía''. En Diccionario de la lengua española (23rd ed.). Retrieved from [https://dle.rae.es/utop%C3%ADa]

Wells, H. G. (1905). ''Una utopía moderna''.

Wikipedia contributors. (2024a, December 19). Dystopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 12:01, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dystopia&oldid=1263860704]

Wikipedia contributors. (2024b, October 22). Utopia. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:54, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&oldid=1252700236]

Wikipedia contributors. (2024c, September 7). Nicholas of Cusa. ''In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia''. Retrieved 11:53, December 28, 2024, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_of_Cusa&oldid=1244461138]

Zamiatin, Y. (1920). ''Nosotros''.

Draft:Lumen

2024-12-29T13:49:29Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: Created page with "== OUR OWN UTOPIA STORY == In the distant age of harmony, long before man forgot the principles of equity, there was a place where dreams of equality, liberty and fraternity were not just abstract ideals, but a palpable reality. That place was called Lumen, a city that knew no darkness, neither physical nor moral, as its inhabitants, guided by deep principles of cooperation, love and justice, lived in perfect balance. Lumen was no ordinary city, it was the product of y..."

== OUR OWN UTOPIA STORY ==
In the distant age of harmony, long before man forgot the principles of equity, there was a place where dreams of equality, liberty and fraternity were not just abstract ideals, but a palpable reality. That place was called Lumen, a city that knew no darkness, neither physical nor moral, as its inhabitants, guided by deep principles of cooperation, love and justice, lived in perfect balance.

Lumen was no ordinary city, it was the product of years of ethical evolution, a civilisation that, after many falls and rebuildings, had come to understand the importance of living without distinction. There was no poverty or wealth; hunger had been eradicated long before the new generations were born. People were not defined by money, power or lineage; they were defined by their ability to share, listen and contribute to collective well-being.

The creation of Lumen had originated centuries ago, in a time of great divisions. The ancient inhabitants of the world lived in societies where gold, power and influence dictated the fate of people. Starvation and inequality were common, and wars over resources were frequent. But a small group of visionaries began to work on a revolutionary idea: if all human beings had access to the same things and no one was above another, what would the world be like?

Over time, this group managed to build Lumen, a city that functioned on a fundamental principle: ‘The welfare of all is the welfare of one’.

Lumen is situated in the center of Solaria, a vast area known for its beautiful, rich landscapes and warm climate. The city is situated at the merging of two significant rivers that flow down from the highlands, surrounded by vast deserts and breathtaking mountain ranges. These rivers, which converge near the city, provide a steady water supply and contribute to the city’s agricultural abundance. The position of Lumen allows it to maintain a strategic advantage, offering access to both the natural resources from the mountains and the fertile lands of the river valleys.

The city’s geolocation places it in a zone of moderate elevation, ensuring a balance between the extremes of high-altitude climates and the harshness of the low desert plains. The surrounding hills provide a natural buffer against harsh winds, creating a microclimate that promotes year-round growth of plants, trees, and crops. The area is sheltered enough to encourage the flourishing of both urban and natural ecosystems, making it a haven for biodiversity. The nearby mountains also serve as a spiritual symbol, as they stand tall on the horizon, embodying the aspirations of Lumen’s citizens for stability and endurance.

Lumen’s position between the desert and mountain ranges also ensures that it remains somewhat isolated from the surrounding cities, which gives it a unique cultural and political identity. This geographical separation allows Lumen to maintain its ideals of peace, harmony, and justice without much external influence. However, it is not completely isolated from the rest of Solaria, as the city is connected to nearby areas by well-maintained roads and bridges, facilitating transit, trade, and cultural exchange. These relationships ensure that Lumen's residents stay aware and involved with the outside world by promoting a balance between independence and openness to outside influences.

The city is located strategically next to the Kirk satellite, an advanced technological device that circles over Lumen. In addition to being a representation of Lumen's link to the wider universe, this satellite also serves a functional purpose by controlling the city's technological and communications system. The satellite’s influence reaches down into the city, maintaining a constant connection with other regions and reinforcing Lumen’s ideal of interconnectedness. This unique positioning of Lumen at the confluence of natural beauty, strategic isolation, and technological advancement shapes its identity and guides the lives of its people.

The city of Lumen is a symbol of the delicate balance between human innovation and nature. Its architecture blends perfectly with its surroundings, a structure built on the principles of justice, harmony and peace.

Smooth stones in the shape of river stones, transparent glass walls that reflect the vast sky, and wood from trees carefully grown to blend in with the environment are some of the materials used to construct the buildings in Lumen. The open and flowing design of the buildings, often with curved lines that mimic the gentle flow of nature, and their green, plant-filled roofs help to create a sense of continuity between the natural and artificial worlds.

The town's central square, where the traditional festivities are held, is large and open, lined with large circular stone pavers that resemble ripples in a pond, symbolising the spread of peaceful influence. Trees, their branches arching gracefully, provide shade and shelter, and fountains of clear, flowing water add to the tranquil atmosphere. In the distance, the majestic Kirk satellite can be seen in the sky, a symbol of the city’s connection to the cosmos and a reminder of the importance of balance between the Earth and the stars.

The natural surroundings of Lumen are as harmonious as the city itself. Large fields of golden grass stretch out in every direction, blowing in the breeze, while gently rounded hills are dotted with colourful wildflowers that change with the seasons. Forests of tall, slim trees, their trunks pale and almost luminous, offer peaceful groves where citizens come to meditate, find comfort or simply enjoy the quiet beauty of nature. These groves, carefully protected, are sacred spaces where harmony is sought through tranquillity and reflection.

Another distinctive aspect of Lumen's geography are its rivers, which flow through the city like veins. The waters are crystal clear, flowing steadily but slowly, and never losing their serenity. These rivers are crossed by little bridges with decorative railings that link different areas of the city and highlight the notion that even the smallest acts of collaboration may bring people together.

In this peaceful world, every building, every tree, and every river seems to have been placed with a purpose, creating a city that is both a physical and philosophical representation of harmony and balance.

In Lumen, there was no distinction between rich and poor. Social classes had long since been eradicated. Every inhabitant, from the youngest to the oldest, had access to the same resources: education, health, food and welfare. The work system was different from the old cities. Here, work was not an obligation to survive, but a voluntary activity aimed at contributing to the common good. There was no economic pressure, and people chose to do what they were passionate about. Workers, scientists, artists and philosophers shared their wisdom and skills, working side by side for a common goal.

Advanced technology, the result of shared effort, allowed basic needs to be met automatically. Energy was renewable, obtained from natural sources such as wind, sun and water. The houses were self-sufficient, built with recycled and biocompatible materials. Instead of being simple residences, the homes were small ecosystems where inhabitants grew their own food and recycled everything they used.

Access to education was universal and free. From an early age, children learned about human history, its mistakes and achievements, and how to work together to create a better future. Teaching was not aimed at gaining qualifications or skills to compete, but at strengthening character, empathy and collaboration.

People in this city reside in cooperative communities known as "support clusters," where they share resources and duties. In addition to guiding legislation, the principles of justice, peace, and harmony serve as the cornerstone of human interactions. The idea of home transcends biological relationships, and families come in a variety of forms. Children are raised in settings where their education and general well-being are attended to by the entire community in addition to their parents.

In this city, there was a very special group of friends. Among them were Elios, Lira and Tarin. Elios was a young man with the unique ability to communicate with the elements of nature. Since childhood he had developed a deep connection with water, wind and earth. He could make forests grow, calm storms and purify rivers. His gift made him the protector of Lumen's ecosystems, teaching everyone to live in symbiosis with their environment. For him, harmony was essential, as he understood that the balance between man and nature was the basis of all progress. Alongside him was his great friend Lira, an expert mediator, born in the city of Serenity, where disputes between peoples were always resolved through dialogue and understanding. Her ability to listen and understand others made her a respected leader who never resorted to violence or coercion. Lira organised peace circles where all voices were heard, creating solutions that would benefit all, without anyone being oppressed or ignored. Finally, the third component of the trio of friends was Tarin, a former judge and defender of fairness. His task was not only to judge, but also to teach people about the importance of justice in a balanced society. With his firm but fair perspective, he had abolished all kinds of discrimination and corruption in Lumen. He understood that justice was not only about punishing injustices but securing that all inhabitants had the same access to resources and opportunities, without any distinctions.

The three friends shared a common neighborhood in Lumen, Lakua, where they devoted their days to ensuring Lumen's justice, harmony, and peace. They enjoyed going to the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies in their spare time, where all citizens were valued and had a say in the decision-making process, which was based on agreement. The population met once a month through the Open Assemblies to talk about significant concerns, always looking for peaceful and inclusive solutions. Lumen arranged its governmental structure as follows:

Lumen's governmental structure was based on a council composed of representatives from different sectors of society: workers, educators, scientists, artists, elders and youth. This council, known as the Harmony Council, was responsible for making important decisions affecting the community. Council members were not elected by popular vote, but were selected for their commitment to Lumen's core values and their ability to mediate and make fair decisions.

Major decisions were made at the Open Assembly, a democratic forum where all citizens of Lumen had the right to make proposals, debate and vote on matters of collective interest. The Assembly was held every month, and decisions were taken by consensus. The active participation of citizens was crucial, as every voice was heard and consensus was reached rather than a majority imposing its will.

To ensure that government decisions were fair and equitable, Lumen relied on a group of mediators, known as the ‘Mediators of Harmony’. These individuals were selected for their ability to remain calm and seek peaceful solutions to disputes or conflicts. They acted as facilitators in the Open Assembly and in government decisions, ensuring that solutions were not only practical, but also reflected the values of peace, equity and justice.

In addition to the Open Assembly, Lumen was organised into small Local Action Circles, which are community groups responsible for making decisions on day-to-day and local issues, such as the distribution of resources, the organisation of community events and the resolution of minor conflicts. These circles allowed for greater autonomy and participation of citizens in local decision-making, promoting a sense of responsibility and ownership.

A Consensus System was developed in Lumen. Decisions were not taken by simple majority, but by a consensus. This meant that all members of the community had to reach a common agreement before an important decision was taken. This approach was intended to ensure that all voices were heard and that the decisions reflected the collective interest, avoiding the imposition of one party's will on another. If consensus could not be reached, further discussions and deliberations were held until a solution which everyone was satisfied with was reached.

The three boys loved being part of these Assemblies and understanding the inside functioning of Lumen. All three were very happy to belong to this society and were sure that nothing would ever break the harmony of Lumen, as they were its guardians. They lived happily with their families, or what in Lumen is understood as family. In this city the notion of family extends beyond blood ties. Citizens understand that the raising and education of children is not only the responsibility of the biological parents, but of the whole community. Therefore, children grow up surrounded by a wide circle of supportive and guiding adults, from grandparents to neighbours, creating a sense of collective belonging. To reinforce this loyalty to your family, every year the ‘Ritual of the Stones’ was celebrated. It was customary for all members of the family—biological or adoptive—to get together to discuss the past year, share achievements and challenges, and reinforce the relationships that unite them. Small tokens known as "Commitment Stones," which symbolized each family member's dedication to the group's overall welfare, were presented during the event. On their tenth birthday, the youngest family member was required to make this offering. It was Elios' younger brother's turn this year.

Elios was very excited about this fact, he had been waiting for this moment for years. For him, his little brother was everything he had, he raised him as if he was his own son. He taught him everything he needed to know about peace, harmony and love for others and he couldn't wait for his brother to do the sacred ritual. He remembered when it was his turn to do it, and he would never forget the moment he handed the stone to his grandfather. He wanted the experience for his brother to be the same or even better. Moreover, this year it would be even more special because the ritual would take place on the same day as The Feast of Harmony, Lumen's National Holiday, which he and his friends had the honour of preparing this year.

While the preparations for the party were keeping the guardians busy, a new group of kids arrived in town. They passed unnoticed among the good citizens of Lumen who, engrossed in the harmony and peace, did not realise the danger they were about to face. These boys were The Defiant. The members of the group were called Xera, Varys and Korra. These kids were lost kids, kids who after challenging the harmony and peace of other cities, were banished from them and forced to wander in the desert that separated the different cities. Forgotten and abandoned by their families, for them there was no such thing as a perfect society. Harmony, peace and justice seemed to them like a fantasy story and so, in their words, they wanted to open people's eyes, to make them realise that the government was controlling them by offering them a false sense of power. In the narrator's words, they wanted to destroy the systems from within so that no one else could live in harmony, peace and justice.

The group included Xera, the leader of the Defiant, Varys, an expert strategist, and Korra, the vigilante. All three boys hailed from the city of Cambria. They believed that the stability of Solaria had suffocated progress. Too much harmony had stopped innovation and personal growth. They believed that ambition and competition were necessary for humanity to advance. To this end, they had a well-organised plan to spread doubts among the people of Lumen. With this, they would gradually make the people acknowledge the reality and destroy the ‘perfect’ system. They would start this plan at the Harmony Party, where the whole city would gather.

The big day arrived. Elios, Lira and Tarin were preparing for the two most important celebrations of the year. They had worked hard to keep Lumen's values intact this year and the city had decided to honour them at the Harmony Festival as well. Thrilled, happy and excited, they arrived at the central square of the city where everyone was waiting for them. They greeted everyone and then the dancing, singing and games began. Food and drink were not to be missed either.

Meanwhile, the Defiant also arrived at the party. Once there, they split up and began their plan. During the previous days, the boys had been leaving a series of speeches and secret propaganda in the mailboxes of certain people they had already studied, people who had already shown a certain dissatisfaction with the system. They were the first to be approached by the Defiant.

Xera argued that the absence of competition and constant cooperation in Lumen had led to a lazy and conformist society, where true ambition and the desire to improve had disappeared. Varys, for the other hand, spread the idea that the peace experienced in Lumen was an illusion.Society had discovered ways to avoid issues rather than face conflict and disagreements directly, which had only resulted in a fragile and superficial peace.

Korra, finally, introduced the notion that Lumen had made people equal, but at the cost of their authenticity and individual growth. He argued that justice had established a system where everyone was treated equally, but people's true abilities and talents were not sufficiently valued. Instead of a world where differences were celebrated, Lumen had created a culture of mediocrity, where no one person stood out more than another. She also promoted a new idea, the exaltation of differences, where individual achievements were to be visibly rewarded, promoting a system that recognised the exceptional abilities of each individual.

In doing so, Xera's followers began to organise secret activities that challenged the peaceful norms of Lumen, engaging in clandestine games and competitions that destabilised the harmonious coexistence. Varys convinced several mediators of harmony that true peace would only be achieved when citizens confronted their differences and fought openly for their beliefs. Under this influence, small tensions began to emerge between communities that had never before challenged each other.

The impact of The Defiant was soon felt. The communities of Lumen began to experience a gradual breakdown of harmony. Xera's secret competitive games caused cooperative relationships to become tense. The mistrust created by Varys led to divisions between different groups that, prior to this influence, had been united in peace. And Korra's ideas of blended inequality began to gain support among those who felt their talents were not being recognised.

In the face of the tremendous commotion, certain sectors of society were very concerned about the danger to the values of Lumen. They brought together in an Open Assembly those responsible for maintaining the balance of Lumen, among them were our guardians. When it was Elios' turn to speak, he warned that it was normal that sometimes people would have different ideas but that they did not have to worry about anything, as the citizens of Lumen were wise and would know how to return to the path of balance. This reassured the mediators of harmony, but without much confidence, they put the three guardians in charge of restoring the balance.

Over the months, far from decreasing, the number of people who began to take a critical view of the Lumen system increased. It came to the point where a new movement contrary to the ideals of the city of Lumen, the Individual Freedom Movement, gained power, including several mediators of harmony in its ranks. At the Open Assembly in June 2300, they presented their thoughts to the astonished looks of the guardians. Among their thoughts were the creation of spaces where conflict is welcomed and managed openly, without the need for hiding or avoiding it. Leaders like Korra pushed this ideology, promoting a vision where people could have more freedom to pursue their own interests without being so constrained by the collective needs of society.

Lumen became divided as a result of this movement, with some members of the population standing up for a greater individual freedom at the expense of the wider community. The belief that harmony could only exist if everyone made sacrifices for the common good was called into question when the conflicts between individual rights and the general welfare turned into a philosophical and political dispute.

One of the guards, Lira, was among the group of people who started raising concerns. She had dedicated her entire life to preserving the principles that her community had taught her, fighting for harmony and communication in which all people were treated with respect and felt listened. Looking at this new situation, she really began to think about new ideas that she had never thought about before. Lira began to reflect on the need for a peace that is not just based on the absence of conflict, but on true equity and the inclusion of all voices, even those that challenge the status quo. In her moments of meditation, she asked: ‘Is harmony really possible if the dissonant voices are never heard, if the deep problems of society are ignored for the sake of apparent unity? Even if she already felt this way, she kept it from her friends.

Still feeling strange, Lira turned to the call of her friends, the guardians, who, faced with the tremendous commotion and not knowing what to do, turned to Thalia, the guardian of knowledge, Lumen's mentor and advisor. She was a wise old woman, known for her vast understanding of Lumen's history and her ability to teach the younger generation. She was one of the first to help create the structure of the society, and her role had always been to ensure that the values of harmony, peace and justice were not forgotten over time. Although her wisdom was unimaginable, her age and her emotional distance from the youth of Lumen sometimes made her feel that her vision was outdated. She often faced uncertainty as to whether society had moved too far forward and away from its original principles.

The guardians explained to Thalia everything that had happened in the last few months. Unlike the horrified and worried expressions of the guardians, she was not surprised at all. In her 103 years, it was not the first time she had seen something like this. She was well aware that maintaining the values of harmony, peace and justice and having them work perfectly within a society was not easy. She had seen it herself on other occasions with other groups of Defiant who came to the city with the desire to wreak havoc. She explained to them past situations and how they had often tried to disrupt the harmony of things. A talk that served to reinforce Lira's vision above all, who again reminded them of the importance of keeping core values alive. Elder Thalia's teachings from the past illuminated the path of the guardians, who found solutions to deal with the ‘chaos’ of the challengers.

They knew that each of the antagonists represented a side of the challenges associated with any ideal society, but they also understood that they had to act with caution, because a direct confrontation could destroy what Lumen had built. The guardians held an assembly, this time a private one, of the founding members of the Individual Freedom Movement. There, the guardians spoke to the three Defiant in an attempt to bring them to their senses.

Elios explained to Xera the real meaning of competition by using his talent to harmonize nature. He demonstrated to her how uncontrolled ambition, lacking teamwork and respect for one another, might ruin the social peace. However, Lira clarified that genuine peace resulted from the fair and equitable resolution of conflicts rather than their absence. She showed how conflict does not have to be destructive if it is approached with compassion and open communication. Finally, Tarin showed that, while individual differences are important, true justice is not about rewarding some over others, but about ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities to develop. He explained that equality did not mean homogeneity, but the creation of a system where each individual could reach their full potential, regardless of their natural abilities or talents.

After debating for 3 and a half days, the members of the Individual Freedom Movement and the guardians decided to set a day for a new Open Assembly, where all these issues would be debated and discussed by the people. Elios, together with Xera, stood at the central stand where everyone could listen to them. Elios was very nervous, as this day could dictate the future of his beloved city. He looked down and saw that all his family and community were there, waiting to see what would happen. But what calmed him the most, and at the same time filled him with strength, was to see his little brother. Are the values he grew up with really ideal and perfect, or did he have to be open to listen to certain changes that could make the lives of the citizens of Lumen better? The silent doubt was beginning to creep into him.

The assembly discussed a number of challenges that Lumen would have to face in the future. Among them, the challenge of maintaining peace without losing resilience, inequality in the distribution of resources or the implementation of education in a non-conflict society. The proposal for the latter was made by Vela, an elderly mediator who specialised in resolving disputes between the inhabitants of Lumen, from family disagreements to small community disputes. Her gift for understanding other people's emotions made her an invaluable resource for keeping the peace. However, she faced an internal crisis. As Lumen's society became more homogeneous and stable, she began to wonder if her role was less important. She often felt frustrated that conflicts had been reduced to minor issues and was afraid that her ability was not as relevant as before. This reflected the existential dilemmas that can arise in a society where conflict seems to have disappeared. This led to a question in the Assembly as to whether peace is more than simply the absence of disputes.

At the end of the debate, there was a breath of fresh air in the air. As they opened the door of the Assembly and stepped back out onto the street, the light from the Kirk satellite shone brightly overhead, creating a welcoming, bright and cheerful atmosphere for the inhabitants. New beginnings and processes of change were on the horizon for these citizens.

It had been decided to go for a change, a new society but based on the old fundamental values on which Lumen had been built. Finally, the Harmony Council decided, by consensus, to open this space for debate, allowing the established norms to be questioned. It was the first step towards a society that, although still perfect in its form, now allows itself to be constantly questioned and transformed. Through this process of reflection and change, Solaria began to understand that true harmony is not a static state, but a continuous process of learning and growth. Citizens no longer feared disagreements, but saw them as opportunities to improve their society.

Lumen reveals an uncomfortable truth: even in a world that seems perfect, there are always elements of doubt, conflict and discontent. Peace, harmony and justice are noble ideals, but the characters show us that their implementation is never perfect or easy. The doubts of Lira, Elios and Vela open a window into reflection on their own beliefs: is peace true if disagreement is not allowed? Is justice a concept that is only achieved in conformity, or is it in the constant struggle for the common good, even if this means confronting ourselves and others? Are we willing to challenge our beliefs and the status quo for a better future?

In Solaria, as in the real world, peace and justice are not something that is achieved once and forever. They are principles that must be constantly defended and challenged, so that they remain real and not just a comfortable illusion.

In the end, the guardians managed to convince the Defiant that instead of sowing mistrust, Solaria should face challenges collectively, learning from their differences rather than confronting them. They promised that together, they would look for ways to encourage innovation without losing balance with the environment and cooperation among citizens. The Defiant accepted and became full citizens of Lumen. They stopped wandering the deserts in search of creating chaos, because they understood that being part of a community and working and fighting for it was much more fulfilling and much happier.

From that day on, the day of The Feast of Harmony changed the date to the day when Lumen accepted that their principles of harmony, peace and justice could have different meanings and that discussing them was indispensable to advance them and not to lose them.

== LUMEN VS DIFFERENT HISTORICAL UTOPIAS AND DYSTOPIAS ==
A story is a fiction about something we would like to happen, a fantasy about a world without social classes, social justice, where people simply do not have to survive but to live.

'''Utopia,''' in this way, is understood as two things: firstly, the ‘desirable plan, project, doctrine or system that seems very difficult to realise’ and secondly, the ‘imaginative representation of a future society with characteristics that favour the human good’, that is, a society so perfect and idealised that it is practically impossible to reach it (Real Academia Española, n.d.).

A '''dystopia''' or anti-utopia is a fictional society that is undesirable in itself. The term, derived from Greek, was created by John Stuart Mill in the late 19th century as a direct antonym of utopia, which in turn was coined by St Thomas More and is the title of his best-known work, published in 1516, in which he describes a model for an ideal society with minimal levels of crime, violence and poverty (Wikipedia contributors, 2024a).

Despite being a history of our own, utopias and dystopias are concepts that have a long history. Authors such as Plato, in ''The Republic'' (ca. 380 BC), describe ideal societies, in this case, governed by philosopher-kings, where justice and social harmony are the fundamental pillars. Thomas More, in his work ''Utopia'' (1516), gives his name to the genre by imagining an island with a perfect political and social system, which indirectly criticises the problems of Renaissance Europe. Francis Bacon, for his part, in ''The New Atlantis'' (1627), presents an ideal society based on scientific knowledge and collaboration for human progress. Later, Edward Bellamy, in ''Looking Backwards: 2000-1887'' (1888), envisions a socialist future where economic and social inequalities have been eliminated.

In the field of dystopias, authors such as George Orwell, with ''1984'' (1949), make a fierce criticism of totalitarianism, showing a world of constant surveillance and manipulation of thought. Aldous Huxley, in ''Brave New World'' (1932), posits a technocratic dystopia where pleasure and mass consumption replace individual freedom. Ray Bradbury, with ''Fahrenheit 451'' (1953), describes a society in which books are banned, and ignorance and superficial entertainment are used as tools of control. Margaret Atwood, in ''The Handmaid's Tale'' (1985), creates a theocratic and misogynistic dystopia where women are deprived of fundamental rights.

Yevgeny Zamiatin, author of ''We'' (1920), conceives one of the first modern dystopias, set in a world where individuality is completely subordinated to the state. On the other hand, Philip K. Dick, in ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'' (1968), explores a dystopian future in which the boundaries between humans and machines are blurred, questioning concepts such as identity and humanity.

Authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin, in ''The Dispossessed'' (1974), combines both approaches by narrating the story of two opposing worlds: one capitalist and the other anarchist, examining both utopian ideals and their limits. H.G. Wells, too, with ''A Modern Utopia'' (1905), examines how a utopia could work in practice, although he also wrote dystopias such as ''The Time Machine'' (1895).

These works, by both utopian and dystopian authors, have not only defined their respective genres, but have also profoundly influenced how we imagine, question and critique human societies.

There has been an evolution of these same terms, adapting to the advances and needs of the society of the moment. They all have in common that the main basis is a critique of the society of the moment. We could even consider it an escape from it, a way of coping with it. Thanks to this evolution, the classification of utopian societies would be as follows: political and historical utopia, economic utopia, technological utopia, ecological utopia and religious or spiritual utopia (Wikipedia contributors, 2024b).

Although following the classification of utopias underlying the ideals of the Information Society, discussed in the presentation of the course, there are six families of utopias: Computable Language, Computable Thought, Unlimited Availability of Knowledge, Computable Social Order (Normalization), Communication without borders, and Security vs Trust of the Information Society.

In this case, our history is framed within the concept of ''Computable Social Order'', as it idealises a just, egalitarian and equitable society. This framework allows for a more systematic analysis of our history with historical utopias and dystopias, facilitating the identification of common patterns and significant differences in how these visions of the future have been conceived.

Nicholas de Cusa (1401-1464), a German Renaissance philosopher, theologian and mathematician, did not explicitly propose a utopia in the modern sense of the term, but his ideas can be interpreted as the foundations of a ‘computable social order’ in certain respects (Wikipedia contributors, 2024c). His thought was based on principles of harmony, equality and the search for an underlying unity in diversity, ideas that could be related to an ideal society regulated by rational principles. In his work ''De Concordantia Catholica'', Nicholas de Cusa (1433) advocates the active participation of communities in government, proposing a model where decisions are made collectively. This idea is consistent with our decision-making, reminding us of the Harmony Council's Open Assemblies where the voice of every citizen is important, where consensus is sought, because following Cusa (1440) in his work ''De Docta Ignorantia'', the recognition of universal ‘ignorance’ fosters intellectual equality among human beings, which can be translated into the idea of a just society where no one imposes his or her vision in an absolute way.

We can see how rational principles not only govern Nicholas de Cusa's stories, but, in our invented utopian society (Lumen), they also constitute the central axis around which the entire social order is organised. In this idealised society, the values of reason and justice are systematically applied to all aspects of everyday life, from political decision-making to economic and social structure.

In our utopia, rationality not only guides individual thinking, but becomes the organising principle of the community. As in the works of Cusa, where the search for universal harmony is key, in our society collective decisions are based on a rational understanding of the needs and desires of individuals. Every action and every policy is based on a logical analysis that seeks to balance personal interests with the collective welfare, following the idea that justice is the perfect balance between all components of society.

The social structure of this utopia reflects the Cusa’s vision of unity in diversity: decisions are made that take into account the multiple voices of society, optimising resources and ensuring that all members receive what they need to reach their potential.

Cusa's (1440) ''Docta Ignorantia'', which underlines the limitation of human knowledge, is also reflected in our utopian society. Instead of claiming to possess absolute truth, an attitude of openness and intellectual humility is encouraged, in which individuals recognise the limitations of their understanding and constantly seek dialogue and collective improvement. In this context, education focuses not only on the acquisition of knowledge, but on the development of critical and reflective capacity, ensuring that decisions are made with a full awareness of their potential impact on society as a whole.

Moreover, in Lumen, all citizens have equal access to information and participation, helping to reduce power inequalities and ensuring that everyone can contribute to creating a common good for all.

The rational principles that guide our society come not only from the philosophical ideas of Nicholas de Cusa, but are also part of a system that ensures that justice, equality and reason are not just abstract ideas, but real principles that underpin the social order. Thus, in this ideal world, the decisions and organisation of society are designed to improve the lives of all people, creating a more just and balanced community.

Leaving aside the similarities with historical utopia, we want to compare it with dystopias such as Huxley's (2006) ''Brave New World'' and Deleuze's (1992) ''Control society.''

Comparing the three societies, we clearly see the differences in the way power and social control are organised, as well as collective well-being. Each of these societies presents a different vision of how technology and social structures influence people's lives, but they all have very different ideas about control, freedom and happiness.

In Huxley's (2006) ''Brave New World'', social control is totalitarian and carried out in subtle ways. People are conditioned from birth to fit into a pre-established place in society. In this world, there is no freedom to question the system, as genetic manipulation and the use of a drug called soma ensure that everyone is happy with their role. Happiness is guaranteed, but it is artificial, and deep human emotions, such as love or frustration, are eliminated. On the other hand, in Deleuze's (1992) ''control society'', control is less obvious but more extensive. Instead of direct control over people, power is dispersed through technology and data collection. Individuals' decisions are constantly influenced, but in ways they do not notice, creating an illusion of freedom. In this way, although individuals believe they are in control of their lives, in reality they are being manipulated by economic and technological systems.

In Lumen, the difference is clear. Here there is no constant control or manipulation. Society is based on the '''active participation''' of people, who have the power to influence collective decisions. People are '''autonomous''' and not conditioned by external forces. Instead of being constantly watched or manipulated by technology, citizens have equal access to '''information''', enabling them to make conscious and responsible decisions. Society is organised '''democratically''', where everyone can actively influence the creation of the common good.

When we talk about '''freedom''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006) there is no real freedom. People cannot choose their destiny, as everything is predetermined by the system. In ''The Control Society'' (Deleuze, 1992), although people believe they are free, in reality their freedom is limited by the invisible influences of data and technological systems. Freedom appears to be present, but in reality it is manipulated by the systems that control information. In our utopia, freedom is real. Individuals have the ability to make decisions without being conditioned by external forces. '''Individual autonomy''' is respected, and collective decisions are made fairly and democratically, ensuring that everyone can influence the organisation of society.

Finally, as for '''collective well-being''', in ''Brave New World'' (Huxley, 2006) it is achieved through uniformity and total control. Although the society appears stable and happy, in reality it is superficial, as everyone must conform and has no room for suffering or diversity of emotions. Justice in this society is focused on maintaining order, regardless of the human costs. In Deleuze's (2006) ''control society'', welfare is also efficiently managed, but again it is conditioned by technological manipulation. Although there appears to be a collective welfare, in reality it is based on the management of individuals through their data. In Lumen, collective welfare is achieved through '''equity and social justice'''. Everyone has access to the resources necessary to develop their potential, and decisions are made for the common good, always respecting the autonomy of each person.

== CONCLUSION ==
In short, the main similarity and difference lies in what is meant by collective welfare in our history and the idea of working towards the betterment of society as a whole (as we accept people's discontent and improve for it) and not fight against the people. A more modern, progressive view of collective welfare focuses on fighting for and with the people, actively listening to their concerns and making changes to create a better, more just society.

When we talk about collective welfare today, it's rooted in the idea that society must be flexible, fair, and equitable. This means creating opportunities for everyone, regardless of their background, to thrive. A key aspect of this is understanding the importance of fairness and justice in policy-making. Society must work towards an egalitarian system where no one is left behind, and where the voices of all people are heard and considered in the decisions that shape their lives.

One crucial point is that we cannot progress without reflecting on our past. By acknowledging the mistakes we've made, we can learn from them and avoid repeating them. This reflection is vital for growth, whether on a personal level or in the development of society as a whole. If we ignore the lessons of history, we risk falling into the same traps that have hindered progress before.

In short, the journey towards collective welfare involves creating a society that listens to its people, learns from its mistakes, and works continuously to ensure fairness, equality, and justice for all. Without such a commitment, we would be doomed to repeat the errors of the past. With Lumen, its governmental organisation and its inherent values that are passed on generationally, we believe we cover those aspects.

The realisation of this work, taking up what has been said above about how it is a critique of today's society, has led us to learn about the social utility of a utopian story: to reflect on society and its shortcomings. Utopias and dystopias not only present us with visions of ideal or terrifying futures, but can act as mirrors that allow us to see, in a clear way, the problems and dangers inherent in our current realities. In this sense, both utopias and dystopias are powerful tools for social critique, as they invite us to question our political structures, our beliefs and our way of life.

Utopias, while idealising a perfect future, are deeply rooted in the social concerns of the moment in which they are conceived. They are often born as direct responses to the problems a society faces. A clear example of this is Thomas More's ''Utopia'', which dates from the 16th century. His work, ''Utopia'' (More, 1516), reflects a strong desire to resolve the social injustices of his time, such as poverty and corruption. In the society More describes, resources are shared equally, and people work together for the common good, eliminating social divisions and inequalities. This is not just an idealised vision of the future, but a direct critique of the social and political structures of Renaissance Europe, where wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few, while the majority suffered the consequences of an unjust system.

Today, contemporary utopias (of which ours is one) follow this same pattern, but address more contemporary social and environmental problems, such as growing economic inequality, racial discrimination, and extreme poverty. Modern utopias often focus on creating a more just and equitable world, where all individuals have access to essential resources such as education, health and decent work. In this way, contemporary utopias are not only dreams of perfection, but also responses to the global challenges we face today, offering alternatives for a more sustainable and just future.

Despite their idealistic character, utopias also reveal the limitations of current systems. They show us what we could achieve if we work together and commit to values of fairness and justice, but they also warn us about the difficulties inherent in realising a perfect society. This is where dystopias come into play, serving as a counterpoint that warns of the dangers of inaction. Dystopias do not present us with desirable futures, but with pessimistic ones. They show us what might happen if we fail to address the problems of the present effectively, and if our aspirations for social justice and progress drift towards authoritarianism, total control or dehumanisation. Dystopias, rather than offering a solution, function as social warnings. They show us futures where the social and political problems we face today, such as oppression, discrimination and inequality, have been exacerbated to unsustainable limits.

This relationship between utopia and dystopia, far from being a contradiction, invites us to question our own realities and to reflect on the choices we make as a society. If we are not vigilant, we run the risk of falling into the same mistakes of the past, seeking perfection at the expense of our freedom and diversity. However, if we learn from the lessons of history and continue to strive for a more just society, we can prevent our ideals from becoming tools of oppression. In this way, utopias and dystopias ultimately serve as powerful reminders of the need to constantly reflect on what we want to build as a society, without losing sight of the dangers of over-centralisation of power and loss of individual autonomy.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Atwood, M. (1985).

El cuento de la criada.

Bacon, F. (1627). La Nueva Atlántida.

Bellamy, E. (1888). Mirando hacia atrás: 2000-1887.

Bradbury, R. (1953). Fahrenheit 451.

Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7.

Dick, P. K. (1968). ¿Sueñan los androides con ovejas eléctricas?.

Huxley, A. (1932). Un mundo feliz.

Huxley, A. (2006). Brave new world (Reprint edition). Harper Perennial Modern Classics. (Original work published 1932).

Le Guin, U. K. (1974). Los desposeídos.

More, T. (1516). Utopia.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1433). De concordantia catholica.

Nicolás de Cusa. (1440). De docta ignorantia.

Orwell, G. (1949). 1984.

Platón. (ca. 380 a.C.). La República.

Real Academia Española. (n.d.). Utopía. En Diccionario de la lengua española (23rd ed.). Retrieved from <nowiki>https://dle.rae.es/utop%C3%ADa</nowiki>

Wells, H. G. (1905). Una utopía moderna.

Wikipedia contributors. (2024a, December 19). Dystopia. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12:01, December 28, 2024, from <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dystopia&oldid=1263860704</nowiki>

Wikipedia contributors. (2024b, October 22). Utopia. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 11:54, December 28, 2024, from <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia&oldid=1252700236</nowiki>

Wikipedia contributors. (2024c, September 7). Nicholas of Cusa. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 11:53, December 28, 2024, from <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_of_Cusa&oldid=1244461138</nowiki>

Zamiatin, Y. (1920). Nosotros.

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-29T12:59:48Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}Article prepared by: <nowiki>[[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[User:Maider Acedo López]]</nowiki>.
== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings (Njoya, 2024). Following Njoya (2024), as Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is ''“the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”''. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living species (Njoya, 2024). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance extends to various aspects of our lives, such as decisions in our daily lives or professional contexts, helping us to develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial to problem solving: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so that it is easier to analyse its components and deduce solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables people to evaluate arguments, identify biases and make informed judgements. With this in mind, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals to present coherent arguments, persuade others and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well facilitates the expression of thoughts in a structured and logical way, which can influence the reception of ideas. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling ideas to be communicated clearly.

Furthermore, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables people to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes and make informed decisions. Thus, reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process and, without it, people might rely on intuition, which may not be as reliable as reasoning.

Finally, following Dienes (2001), reasoning helps individuals to maintain an open mind, encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As mentioned, reasoning fosters flexibility of thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Thus, in '''Ancient Greece,''' Aristotle developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work such as the Organon (Aristotle, Cooke and Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced world traditions, such as the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period,''' Islamic scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, laying the foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). At the same time, scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating their role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, paving the way for the '''Scientific Revolution''', in which thinkers such as Galileo and Newton proposed empirical methods essential to understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as crucial, as it marked a paradigm shift that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment,''' known as the ‘Age of Reason’, saw philosophers such as Kant champion reason as the foundation of morality and government. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, defending its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers such as Nietzsche later criticized the universalism of reason, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce (1898) does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

For this work, AI has been helpful in improving our vocabulary and phrases, since the search for information has been on our part.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-29T12:58:37Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}Article prepared by: <nowiki>[[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[User:Maider Acedo López]]</nowiki>.

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings (Njoya, 2024). Following Njoya (2024), as Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is ''“the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”''. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living species (Njoya, 2024). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance extends to various aspects of our lives, such as decisions in our daily lives or professional contexts, helping us to develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial to problem solving: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so that it is easier to analyse its components and deduce solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables people to evaluate arguments, identify biases and make informed judgements. With this in mind, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals to present coherent arguments, persuade others and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well facilitates the expression of thoughts in a structured and logical way, which can influence the reception of ideas. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling ideas to be communicated clearly.

Furthermore, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables people to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes and make informed decisions. Thus, reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process and, without it, people might rely on intuition, which may not be as reliable as reasoning.

Finally, following Dienes (2001), reasoning helps individuals to maintain an open mind, encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As mentioned, reasoning fosters flexibility of thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Thus, in '''Ancient Greece,''' Aristotle developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work such as the Organon (Aristotle, Cooke and Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced world traditions, such as the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period,''' Islamic scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, laying the foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). At the same time, scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating their role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, paving the way for the '''Scientific Revolution''', in which thinkers such as Galileo and Newton proposed empirical methods essential to understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as crucial, as it marked a paradigm shift that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment,''' known as the ‘Age of Reason’, saw philosophers such as Kant champion reason as the foundation of morality and government. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, defending its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers such as Nietzsche later criticized the universalism of reason, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce (1898) does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

For this work, AI has been helpful in improving our vocabulary and phrases, since the search for information has been on our part.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-29T12:55:59Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}

Article prepared by: <nowiki>[[User:Irene Hernandez Gonzalez]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[User:Maider Acedo López]]</nowiki>.

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings (Njoya, 2024). Following Njoya (2024), as Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is ''“the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”''. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living species (Njoya, 2024). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance extends to various aspects of our lives, such as decisions in our daily lives or professional contexts, helping us to develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial to problem solving: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so that it is easier to analyse its components and deduce solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables people to evaluate arguments, identify biases and make informed judgements. With this in mind, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals to present coherent arguments, persuade others and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well facilitates the expression of thoughts in a structured and logical way, which can influence the reception of ideas. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling ideas to be communicated clearly.

Furthermore, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables people to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes and make informed decisions. Thus, reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process and, without it, people might rely on intuition, which may not be as reliable as reasoning.

Finally, following Dienes (2001), reasoning helps individuals to maintain an open mind, encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As mentioned, reasoning fosters flexibility of thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Thus, in '''Ancient Greece,''' Aristotle developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work such as the Organon (Aristotle, Cooke and Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced world traditions, such as the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period,''' Islamic scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, laying the foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). At the same time, scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating their role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, paving the way for the '''Scientific Revolution''', in which thinkers such as Galileo and Newton proposed empirical methods essential to understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as crucial, as it marked a paradigm shift that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment,''' known as the ‘Age of Reason’, saw philosophers such as Kant champion reason as the foundation of morality and government. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, defending its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers such as Nietzsche later criticized the universalism of reason, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce (1898) does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

For this work, AI has been helpful in improving our vocabulary and phrases, since the search for information has been on our part.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Clarus:Utopias and the information society

2024-12-29T12:19:22Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* The Perfect Social Order */

{{TOC_left}}
This elucidation is attached to the seminar ''[https://sites.google.com/unileon.es/utopias-and-the-inf-soc/ From Ancient Utopias to Cyberutopias. An introduction to political philosophy]'' held at the Munich University of Applied Science under the supervision of [[User:JDíaz|J.M. Díaz Nafría]]. The goal is contributing to the conceptual clarification to which glossaLAB is devoted to, namely the understanding of information and systems from multiple perspectives, and at the same time contributiong to the objectives of the seminar as explained in the next paragraph.
==The relations between utopias, systems and political philosophy==
One may ask, what has this purpose to do with the historical study of utopias and its manifestation in current cyberutopias, as an introduction to political philosophy. Well, the relation is probably much stronger than what one would think in first sight.

One needs first bearing in mind that a '''system''' is the result of interacting parts whose cooperative activity makes the system to endure (preserving some kind of identity) and that creates some functionality for the system itself and for the environment where it happens to exist. At the same time, it is clear that any '''utopia''' is devised, first of all, to fulfil some wishful characteristics and, second, to endure. Since, in addition, it is composed by parts whose interaction suppose to be responsible for the wishful objectives, then a utopia is nothing but a system, indeed a social system. However it is not as any other social system we may be willing to study, it is a system proposed as a goal that suppose to be worth being pursued, i.e., a goal we may strive to achieve, and even sometimes the target of a programme we may carefully plan. The Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano puts it very nicely in the following words:
<blockquote><poem>"Utopia is on the horizon. I walk two steps, it takes two steps away, and the horizon runs ten steps further. So, for what does the utopia works? For that, it serves to walk."
—E.Galeano</poem></blockquote>
And when we speak of walking for a social system (particularly if it requires decision making) that's nothing but '''politics'''. From that perspective, political action always involves some utopia, be it more or less explicit. And when we want to delve into the different political approaches to understand them better, then we need to focus on the utopias which are moving the political action, and that is doing '''political philosophy'''. And what about '''dystopias'''? That's something we dislike, we wish to avoid them. That's clearly not a model to fulfil, but rather a model to scape from. Therefore, it is also a reason to walk for the social system, though in the sense of walking away.

Indeed the study of systems enables us to preview the space of possibilities in which the system may move. And we may see that if we set the (social) system in a particular way, the space of possibilities often displays areas which are better to avoid. A saylor needs to mark in the navigation chart not only the seaports but also the pitfalls to avoid. All in all when we analyse any utopia from its utopic and dystopic sides, we are clarifying the ultimate meanings of political approaches which is a way of doing political philosophy and even assesing the value of political proposals.

You can find below a (non-exhaustive) list of topics which are worth working in, classified according to the family of utopias in which they can be categorised using the clasification proposed during the lectures. Participants can work in just one topic or in several ones and find the connections existing with other concepts within the network of clarified concepts.

===Creating a user===
{{#ev:
youtube
|id=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uwNx35JL70
|450
|alignment=right
|container=frame
}}
Obviously, the first simply step to do for working in glossaLAB platform is creating a user, identified by your full name and providing a brief research profile of yourself (condensed in a paragraph). Since we will measure the diversity and integration of disciplines when your user has been created, you should go to your user page (e.g. User:Modestos Stavrakis) and select -at the bottom of the edition page- the categories corresponding to the knowledge domains of your studies (the set of categories, organised in 9 trunks, contains more than 60, which are derived from the Universal Decimal Classification of disciplines). In this video you can see the process of user creation, the logging into the platform as accredited user and the initiation of the editing.

==Preliminary clarifications (for participants in the seminar)==
As a previous step to clarify other terms in more detail, we will continue herewith the clarification of the concepts I ask you about since the beginning of the seminar. You don't need to make any deep research on the meaning, the idea is collecting the different views you have with respect these concepts, but nevertheless with the purpose of improving what has already been clarified before. Indeed, you may see other clarifications from your colleagues when you arrive to the page.
*If your view is significantly different to what already was given (or the page is still empty), you can add a new paragraph and start your contribution with the following format (suppose you are clarifying 'concept' and your user name is Anne Smith):
<pre>'''Concept''' can be understood as ...
Supporters of this understanding: [[User:Anne Smith]]</pre>
*If your understanding is very similar to what some of your colleagues has clarified before, you can just try to improve it (don't worry about overwriting because the original text can be recovered and the novelty you provide can be distinguished using the history tool), or to contribute with some further detail in the same direction. Below the corresponding paragraph you should add your user name to the list of supporters as shown above.

To provide your views just follow the following links:
[[Utopia (preliminary)]] | [[Dystopia (preliminary)]] | [[Abstract vs concrete utopia (preliminary)]] | [[Information society (preliminary)]] | [[Cyberutopia (preliminary)]]

==Guidelines for contributors (participants in the seminar)==
The elaboration of your contribution(s) is something you can do in collaboration with other colleagues and assisted by the course's teacher. You need first to determine in what family of utopia your are you going to work in the first place. It may happen, when you start, that there are other entries worth being added (for instance, a concept you use which is not clarified yet). If you need to open a new voice, you can create a new article and communicate the action to the supervisor to provide the necessary components to be properly managed and supervised.

Since your contribution needs to be adequately embedded within the glossaLAB's conceptual network, therefore, it is important to be aware what is already there and to establish connections with other conceptual clarifications. First of all, your topic may already be opened and it may have some content you should review in order to enhance or complete in the way you wish. The documentation section within the [https://sites.google.com/unileon.es/utopias-and-the-inf-soc/ seminar's website] contains published materials you can use for backing-up your contribution(s).

==Possible Seminar's Topics==
===The perfect Language===

[[The computable language]] | [[The analytical language]] | [[A unified language]] | [[The perfect translator]]

===The Perfect Thinking===

[[The computable mind]] | [[Artificial Intelligence (Cyberutopias)]] | [[Deep Learning]] | [[Machine Learning]] | [[Spiegel's "Her"]]

===The Perfect Wisdom===

[[The universal library]] | [[The ubiquitous education]] | [[The web as a reservoir of wisdom]] | [[The network as a new paradigm for wisdom]]

===The Perfect Social Order===

[[The computable social order]] | [[Homeland Earth]] | [[Making peace with nature]] | [[Engineering the environment]] | [[Cybersubsidiarity]] | [[Other worlds are possible]] | [[A Global Sustainable Information Society]] | [[Huxley's "A Brave New World"]] | [[Wachowski Sisters' "Matrix""]]] | [[Deleuze's "Control society"]] | [[Neom: An absurd city project in Saudi Arabia]] | [[Project Cybersin]] | [[Draft:Smart City|Smart City]] | [[Draft:The Deliverance |The Deliverance]] | [[Lumen]]

[[Category:GlossaLAB.edu]]

===The Perfect Transparent Society===

[[A transparent world]] | [[The network transparency]] | [[Orwell's "1984"]] | [[The social dilemma]]

===The Perfect Trustful Society===

[[A trustful information society]] | [[crypto-anarchism]] | [[cyber-punk]] | [[The anarchist shaping of technology]] | [[e-Participative Democracy]]| [[The soft power]] | [[Huxley's "A Brave New World"]]

===The Perfect Purpose ===

[[Humans reason d'etre]] | [[Maximal human expression]] | [[Love for mankind through a higher purposes]] | [[Shaping of technology through the will and purpose of mankind]] | [[Interdependency of all other perfect utopias with 'The Purpose']] | [[Examples of purpose as shown in fictional works like: E.E.Smith's "Lensmen-Series", David Brin's "The Uplift War" end co...]] | [[Examples and consequences of lost purpose as shown in fictional works like: Huxley's "A Brave New World"]] | [[The danger of misguided purpose]]

[[Category:GlossaLAB.edu]]

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-28T23:37:14Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* OVERVIEW */

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings (Njoya, 2024). Following Njoya (2024), as Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is ''“the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”''. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living species (Njoya, 2024). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance extends to various aspects of our lives, such as decisions in our daily lives or professional contexts, helping us to develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial to problem solving: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so that it is easier to analyse its components and deduce solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables people to evaluate arguments, identify biases and make informed judgements. With this in mind, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals to present coherent arguments, persuade others and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well facilitates the expression of thoughts in a structured and logical way, which can influence the reception of ideas. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling ideas to be communicated clearly.

Furthermore, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it enables people to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes and make informed decisions. Thus, reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process and, without it, people might rely on intuition, which may not be as reliable as reasoning.

Finally, following Dienes (2001), reasoning helps individuals to maintain an open mind, encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As mentioned, reasoning fosters flexibility of thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Thus, in '''Ancient Greece,''' Aristotle developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work such as the Organon (Aristotle, Cooke and Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced world traditions, such as the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period,''' Islamic scholars such as Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, laying the foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). At the same time, scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating their role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, paving the way for the '''Scientific Revolution''', in which thinkers such as Galileo and Newton proposed empirical methods essential to understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as crucial, as it marked a paradigm shift that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment,''' known as the ‘Age of Reason’, saw philosophers such as Kant champion reason as the foundation of morality and government. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, defending its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers such as Nietzsche later criticized the universalism of reason, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce (1898) does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

For this work, AI has been helpful in improving our vocabulary and phrases, since the search for information has been on our part.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-27T13:22:54Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES */

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings ( Njoya, 2024). As Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is “the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living spices (Ludwig Von Mises, 1949). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance spans throughout various aspects of our life, as decisions of our daily life or professional contexts, helping us develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial for solving problems: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so it is easier to analyze its component and derive solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables individuals to assess arguments, identify biases, and make well-informed judgments. Taking that into account, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional, and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals present coherent arguments, persuade others, and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well makes it easier to express thoughts in a structured, logical way, which can influence how ideas are received. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling the clear communication of ideas.

In addition, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his work ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it allows individuals to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes, and make informed choices. So reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process, and without it, people might rely on intuition, which might not be as reliable as the reasoning.

Finally, and following Dienes' (2001) idea, reasoning helps individuals remain open-minded by encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As stated by, reasoning promotes flexibility in thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Aristotle, then, in '''Ancient Greece''' developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work like the “Organon” (Aristotle, Cooke & Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced global traditions, including the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period''', Islamic scholars like Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, providing a foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). Simultaneously, Scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating its role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, setting the stage for the '''Scientific Revolution''', where thinkers like Galileo and Newton advanced empirical methods as essential for understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as pivotal, marking a shift in paradigms that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment''', known as the "Age of Reason," saw philosophers like Kant advocate for reason as the foundation of morality and governance. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, arguing for its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers like Nietzsche later critiqued reason’s universalism, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce (1898) does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los límites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-27T13:21:53Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* Definition */

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings ( Njoya, 2024). As Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is “the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living spices (Ludwig Von Mises, 1949). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance spans throughout various aspects of our life, as decisions of our daily life or professional contexts, helping us develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial for solving problems: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so it is easier to analyze its component and derive solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables individuals to assess arguments, identify biases, and make well-informed judgments. Taking that into account, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional, and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals present coherent arguments, persuade others, and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well makes it easier to express thoughts in a structured, logical way, which can influence how ideas are received. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling the clear communication of ideas.

In addition, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his work ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it allows individuals to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes, and make informed choices. So reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process, and without it, people might rely on intuition, which might not be as reliable as the reasoning.

Finally, and following Dienes' (2001) idea, reasoning helps individuals remain open-minded by encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As stated by, reasoning promotes flexibility in thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Aristotle, then, in '''Ancient Greece''' developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work like the “Organon” (Aristotle, Cooke & Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced global traditions, including the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period''', Islamic scholars like Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, providing a foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). Simultaneously, Scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating its role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, setting the stage for the '''Scientific Revolution''', where thinkers like Galileo and Newton advanced empirical methods as essential for understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as pivotal, marking a shift in paradigms that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment''', known as the "Age of Reason," saw philosophers like Kant advocate for reason as the foundation of morality and governance. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, arguing for its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers like Nietzsche later critiqued reason’s universalism, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance.

In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.

Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce (1898) does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los limites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-27T13:19:00Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* OVERVIEW */

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into nine dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, obstacles for reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reasoning vs feelings, and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings ( Njoya, 2024). As Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is “the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living spices (Ludwig Von Mises, 1949). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance spans throughout various aspects of our life, as decisions of our daily life or professional contexts, helping us develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial for solving problems: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so it is easier to analyze its component and derive solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables individuals to assess arguments, identify biases, and make well-informed judgments. Taking that into account, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional, and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals present coherent arguments, persuade others, and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well makes it easier to express thoughts in a structured, logical way, which can influence how ideas are received. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling the clear communication of ideas.

In addition, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his work ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it allows individuals to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes, and make informed choices. So reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process, and without it, people might rely on intuition, which might not be as reliable as the reasoning.

Finally, and following Dienes' (2001) idea, reasoning helps individuals remain open-minded by encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As stated by, reasoning promotes flexibility in thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Aristotle, then, in '''Ancient Greece''' developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work like the “Organon” (Aristotle, Cooke & Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced global traditions, including the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period''', Islamic scholars like Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, providing a foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). Simultaneously, Scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating its role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, setting the stage for the '''Scientific Revolution''', where thinkers like Galileo and Newton advanced empirical methods as essential for understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as pivotal, marking a shift in paradigms that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment''', known as the "Age of Reason," saw philosophers like Kant advocate for reason as the foundation of morality and governance. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, arguing for its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers like Nietzsche later critiqued reason’s universalism, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance. In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.
Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los limites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-27T13:15:17Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into eight dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reason vs feelings and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings ( Njoya, 2024). As Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is “the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living spices (Ludwig Von Mises, 1949). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance spans throughout various aspects of our life, as decisions of our daily life or professional contexts, helping us develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial for solving problems: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so it is easier to analyze its component and derive solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables individuals to assess arguments, identify biases, and make well-informed judgments. Taking that into account, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional, and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals present coherent arguments, persuade others, and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well makes it easier to express thoughts in a structured, logical way, which can influence how ideas are received. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling the clear communication of ideas.

In addition, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his work ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it allows individuals to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes, and make informed choices. So reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process, and without it, people might rely on intuition, which might not be as reliable as the reasoning.

Finally, and following Dienes' (2001) idea, reasoning helps individuals remain open-minded by encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As stated by, reasoning promotes flexibility in thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Aristotle, then, in '''Ancient Greece''' developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work like the “Organon” (Aristotle, Cooke & Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced global traditions, including the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period''', Islamic scholars like Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, providing a foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). Simultaneously, Scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating its role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, setting the stage for the '''Scientific Revolution''', where thinkers like Galileo and Newton advanced empirical methods as essential for understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as pivotal, marking a shift in paradigms that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment''', known as the "Age of Reason," saw philosophers like Kant advocate for reason as the foundation of morality and governance. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, arguing for its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers like Nietzsche later critiqued reason’s universalism, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance. In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.
Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los limites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Draft: (Deductive/Inductive/Abductive) Reasoning}}
__FORCETOC__

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-27T13:12:30Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* Therefore, the structure would be: */

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into eight dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reason vs feelings and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings ( Njoya, 2024). As Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is “the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living spices (Ludwig Von Mises, 1949). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance spans throughout various aspects of our life, as decisions of our daily life or professional contexts, helping us develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial for solving problems: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so it is easier to analyze its component and derive solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables individuals to assess arguments, identify biases, and make well-informed judgments. Taking that into account, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional, and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals present coherent arguments, persuade others, and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well makes it easier to express thoughts in a structured, logical way, which can influence how ideas are received. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling the clear communication of ideas.

In addition, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his work ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it allows individuals to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes, and make informed choices. So reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process, and without it, people might rely on intuition, which might not be as reliable as the reasoning.

Finally, and following Dienes' (2001) idea, reasoning helps individuals remain open-minded by encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As stated by, reasoning promotes flexibility in thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Aristotle, then, in '''Ancient Greece''' developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work like the “Organon” (Aristotle, Cooke & Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced global traditions, including the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period''', Islamic scholars like Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, providing a foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). Simultaneously, Scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating its role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, setting the stage for the '''Scientific Revolution''', where thinkers like Galileo and Newton advanced empirical methods as essential for understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as pivotal, marking a shift in paradigms that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment''', known as the "Age of Reason," saw philosophers like Kant advocate for reason as the foundation of morality and governance. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, arguing for its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers like Nietzsche later critiqued reason’s universalism, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

* All A are B
* C is A
* Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====

* All men are mortal (major premise)
* Socrates is a man (minor premise)
* Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance. In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.
Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los limites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-27T13:09:59Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: /* RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING */

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into eight dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reason vs feelings and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings ( Njoya, 2024). As Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is “the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living spices (Ludwig Von Mises, 1949). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance spans throughout various aspects of our life, as decisions of our daily life or professional contexts, helping us develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial for solving problems: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so it is easier to analyze its component and derive solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables individuals to assess arguments, identify biases, and make well-informed judgments. Taking that into account, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional, and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals present coherent arguments, persuade others, and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well makes it easier to express thoughts in a structured, logical way, which can influence how ideas are received. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling the clear communication of ideas.

In addition, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his work ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it allows individuals to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes, and make informed choices. So reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process, and without it, people might rely on intuition, which might not be as reliable as the reasoning.

Finally, and following Dienes' (2001) idea, reasoning helps individuals remain open-minded by encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As stated by, reasoning promotes flexibility in thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Aristotle, then, in '''Ancient Greece''' developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work like the “Organon” (Aristotle, Cooke & Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced global traditions, including the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period''', Islamic scholars like Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, providing a foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). Simultaneously, Scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating its role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, setting the stage for the '''Scientific Revolution''', where thinkers like Galileo and Newton advanced empirical methods as essential for understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as pivotal, marking a shift in paradigms that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment''', known as the "Age of Reason," saw philosophers like Kant advocate for reason as the foundation of morality and governance. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, arguing for its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers like Nietzsche later critiqued reason’s universalism, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

All A are B

C is A

Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====
All men are mortal (major premise)

Socrates is a man (minor premise)

Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance. In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.
Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los limites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

Draft:Reasoning

2024-12-27T13:08:48Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez: Created page with "== OVERVIEW == The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay. To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the hi..."

== OVERVIEW ==
The main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of reasoning through the basic notions that have an influence in the development of it. First, a brief introduction to the subject as well as the explanation of the importance of the subject is included in this work, as a way to achieve some perspective and information over the topic before we start our essay.

To get a brief overview of the evolution of reasoning since ancient times a summary of the history is given. Then the general concept of philosophical reasoning is stated including its three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning. In the same way, we compare the differences and the similarities between them to reach the relation that exists between them. For that, we define each one of them and we give basic important information to be able to recognize each one. This article concludes with other topics that we found interesting to get into a holistic view of the reasoning.

It is crucial to mention that the paper will be divided into eight dominant parts: introduction, the importance of reasoning, history of reasoning, types of reasoning, relationship between the three types of reasoning, the role of reasoning in the modern world, reason vs feelings and the conclusion.

== INTRODUCTION ==
Reason is as old as mankind and as dominant as human nature (Santayana, 1905). The word reason comes from the Latin word ''ratio, rationis'' which means “calculation, reason or reasoning”. Cambridge dictionary (n.d.) states that reason is “the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision”. The word “reason”, in French, is translated as ''raison''. In Italian, ''ragione''; in Spanish, ''razón''; in German, ''ratio''. These are similar words indicating a distant common origin (Anders, n.d.).

Some philosophers, drawing on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, have questioned the nature and limits of reason; human reason plays a central role in the development of human beings ( Njoya, 2024). As Ludwig Von Mises (1949) described in the ''Economic Treaty of Human Action'', reason is “the mark which distinguishes man from animals and which has given rise to all that is specifically human”. For that, it has played a major role in philosophy, as it plays a fundamental role in shaping human understanding, decision-making and knowledge.

Reasoning can be categorized into three different forms: inductive, abductive, and deductive. Each of them play a crucial role in how we draw conclusions, develop hypotheses, and solve problems. They differ not only in the direction of logic but also in their approach to the reliability and certainty of conclusions (Peirce, 1898). Charles Sanders Pierce (1898) stated that the conclusions are inferential in nature in that they not only perfect or transform previous knowledge, but also transform previous beliefs, evaluations and attitudes.

== IMPORTANCE OF REASONING ==
Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that allows humans to differ from other living spices (Ludwig Von Mises, 1949). Johnson-Laird (2006) states that reasoning allows us to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems using information that is already available. Its importance spans throughout various aspects of our life, as decisions of our daily life or professional contexts, helping us develop critical thinking, understanding and innovation. For him, reasoning is crucial for solving problems: it breaks down a problem into smaller pieces so it is easier to analyze its component and derive solutions or conclusions logically.

For Facione (2016), reasoning enables individuals to assess arguments, identify biases, and make well-informed judgments. Taking that into account, critical thinking then involves the use of reasoning to evaluate and improve thinking, a skill that is essential in academic, professional, and personal contexts.

According to Paul and Elder (2000), reasoning also plays an essential role in communication. It helps individuals present coherent arguments, persuade others, and engage in productive discussions. The ability to reason well makes it easier to express thoughts in a structured, logical way, which can influence how ideas are received. In conclusion, reasoning is a fundamental aspect of intellectual and ethical discourse, enabling the clear communication of ideas.

In addition, Kahneman (2011) suggests in his work ''Thinking, Fast and Slow'' that reasoning is essential for effective decision-making, as it allows individuals to weigh pros and cons, consider possible outcomes, and make informed choices. So reasoning plays a crucial role in the decision-making process, and without it, people might rely on intuition, which might not be as reliable as the reasoning.

Finally, and following Dienes' (2001) idea, reasoning helps individuals remain open-minded by encouraging the evaluation of new information and adjusting one's beliefs or actions when necessary. As stated by, reasoning promotes flexibility in thought, which can lead to personal growth and a broader understanding of the world.

== HISTORY OF REASONING ==
Reason is a discovery of the Greeks. The laws of thought were observed early in ancient Greece, and later expressed and codified by various philosophers, among whom we should certainly mention Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (López, 2003). For the philosopher Jorge Millas (1970), Greece is essentially the initiator of the idea and experience of a rational culture. A culture created freely by men situated with a conscious and critical view of traditions, but without necessarily detaching themselves from them.

Following Ricardo Lopez (2003), we can fix the place, the period and the fathers of Greek reason. The history of philosophy mainly assigns to Thales the merit of introducing into the Greek mind the vocation for reason, which will be responsible for creating a strong distrust of the narratives of myth and initiating new ways of thinking and explaining. Thus, at the beginning of the 6th century, in the city of Miletus in Ionia, first Thales and then Anaximander and Anaximenes, inaugurated a mode of reflection free of any allusion to supernatural forces, provoked by astonishment and based on questions.

Aristotle, then, in '''Ancient Greece''' developed foundational principles of logic, such as deductive reasoning, which were detailed in a work like the “Organon” (Aristotle, Cooke & Tredennick, 1938). These ideas profoundly influenced global traditions, including the Indian ''Nyaya'' school and ''Confucian'' philosophy, which emphasized ethical and practical reasoning (Russell, 1945).

During the '''medieval period''', Islamic scholars like Avicenna and Averroes preserved and expanded Greek rationalist traditions by reconciling them with Islamic theology, providing a foundation for later European thought (Russell, 1945). Simultaneously, Scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize reason and Christian doctrine, demonstrating its role in understanding divine truths (Eagleton, 2009).

The '''Renaissance''' revitalized reason as a tool for creativity and scientific inquiry, setting the stage for the '''Scientific Revolution''', where thinkers like Galileo and Newton advanced empirical methods as essential for understanding the natural world. Kuhn (1962) highlights this period as pivotal, marking a shift in paradigms that reshaped rational thought.

The '''Enlightenment''', known as the "Age of Reason," saw philosophers like Kant advocate for reason as the foundation of morality and governance. Kant (1781/1998) critically examined the capacities of human reason, arguing for its central role in structuring human experience. However, modern thinkers like Nietzsche later critiqued reason’s universalism, emphasizing its limitations and the role of instinct and emotion (Russell, 1945).

== TYPES OF REASONING ==
Reasoning, as a method of deriving conclusions from information, is generally categorized into three primary types: '''deductive''', '''inductive''', and '''abductive'''. These approaches differ in how they connect premises to conclusions and are foundational to various fields, from philosophy to science.

=== Deductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Following Evans (2019) a deduction is a conclusion that follows from things we believe or assume. Aristotle and his disciples introduced deductive reasoning as a thought process in which general statements are arrived at by applying the rules of logic to specific statements (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Therefore, the structure would be: ====
General → specific

It is a system for organising known facts and drawing conclusions, which is achieved by means of a series of statements called syllogisms, comprising three elements: a) the major premise, b) the minor premise and c) the conclusion (Dávila Newman, 2006).

Visually it would be as follows:

All A are B

C is A

Therefore, C is B

==== Here is an example: ====
All men are mortal (major premise)

Socrates is a man (minor premise)

Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

If the premises of deductive reasoning are true, the conclusion will also be true. This reasoning makes it possible to organise the premises into syllogisms that provide the decisive proof for the validity of a conclusion; it is generally said in the face of a situation that is not understood, ‘Deduce’, however, deductive reasoning has limitations (Dávila Newman, 2006).

==== Limitations ====
Based on Dávila Newman’s (2006) article, it is necessary to start with true premises in order to arrive at valid conclusions. The conclusion of a syllogism can never go beyond the content of the premises. Deductive conclusions are necessarily inferences made from already existing knowledge. Consequently, scientific inquiry cannot be carried out by deductive reasoning alone, as it is difficult to establish the universal truth of many statements dealing with scientific phenomena. Deductive reasoning can organise what is already known and point to new relationships as it moves from the general to the specific, but it does not constitute a source of new truths.

Despite its limitations, Dávila (2006) states that it is useful for research, offers resources for linking theory and observation, and allows researchers to deduce from theory the phenomena to be observed. Deductions made from theory can provide hypotheses that are an essential part of scientific research.

=== Inductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Francis Bacon is credited with introducing inductive reasoning into scientific inquiry in the 17th century (Cole, n.d.). Bacon (1561-1626) was the first to propose a new method of acquiring knowledge, stating that thinkers should not enslave themselves by accepting as absolute truths the premises handed down by authorities on the subject (Newman, 2006).

According to Bruno Sauce and Louis D. Matzel (2017), inductive reasoning is a logical process where multiple observations or premises, generally considered true, are combined to form a probable conclusion. Unlike deductive reasoning, which guarantees certainty, inductive reasoning only offers varying degrees of probability based on the strength of the evidence. It is used to make predictions, derive general principles, or categorize based on specific observations.

Following Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987), inductive reasoning is a relation of judgements that ‘goes from the particular to the general’. In Inductive Inference we start from particular judgements to make a ‘leap’ and conclude with a Universal Judgement. The inductive method is known as experimental and its steps are: 1) Observation, 2) Hypothesis formulation, 3) Verification, 4) Thesis, 5) Law and 6) Theory (Newman, 2006).

==== The structure is: ====
Specific→ General

==== We can exemplify this with the following: ====
<gallery>
File:I.R.png|Source: made by us based on the thesis of Fernando Martinez Cabrera (1987)
</gallery>

==== Limitations ====
Based on Jennifer Herrity’s (2023) statement, inductive reasoning may lead you to create a theory with limitations based on the evidence or knowledge you have. This can sometimes lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, it requires data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, but there's still a chance that new facts or evidence may emerge and prove your theory wrong. These limitations make it important to learn to use inductive reasoning skills along with other types of reasoning.

However, as Sauce and D. Matzel (2017) note, this approach underpins scientific inquiry, as scientists rely on accumulated empirical evidence to make approximations rather than absolute truths. Beyond science, inductive reasoning is fundamental to everyday activities such as problem-solving, social interaction, and motor control, showcasing its broad relevance to human and animal cognition (Sauce & D. Matzel, 2017).

=== Abductive Reasoning ===

==== Definition ====
Abduction is a type of reasoning that from the description of a fact or phenomenon offers or arrives at a hypothesis, which explains the possible reasons or motives of the fact by means of the premises obtained (Soler, 2012). In other words, it is a hypothesis, which can be confirmed or rejected with further observations in order to seek an explanation for the anomaly presented. For Cardenas (n.d.) an anomaly is something new, a phenomenon that is not understood in the first instance. In Anderson's (1992) words, the abductive argument can be defined as a form of reasoning that seeks to obtain simple conclusions through a series of premises.
Peirce (1898) argues that the confidence to raise a hypothesis on the basis of a few observations, being this statistically insufficient, is sustained in the previous experience on the generation of major premises by the one who raises them. Peirce does not confer a mystical character to the proposition of abduction hypotheses, but indicates that this has a conscious and rational level in the mind of the proposer. Peirce (1898) indicates that ''a priori'' it must be shown as something that can be submitted to discussion, and if the result is something that does not contribute new knowledge, then it is not an abductive hypothesis.

==== The structure is: ====

* First premise: N is an event or a set of events.
* Second premise: G is a possible or satisfactory explanation of N.
* Conclusion: G is the explanation of N, at least until something suggests otherwise.

==== We can exemplify with the following: ====

* First premise: Elegant men buy their clothes at Alberto's store.
* Second premise: Nestor is an elegant man.
* Conclusion: Then Nestor must buy his clothes at Alberto's store.

==== Limitations ====
Central to its nature is creativity and imagination. This type of reasoning requires a leap into the conceptual unknown, often leading researchers to formulate new hypotheses or theories that were not previously considered. It is an exploratory process that thrives on innovation and pushes the boundaries of conventional thinking. If that might seem easy, entering the unknown might not be comfortable for some people, which makes the abductive reasoning not available for everyone (Aliseda, 1998).

According to Villar (2008), another defining feature of abductive reasoning is its flexibility and adaptability. Therefore, its limitations are less compared with the other two types of reasoning. That being true, it is also reasonable to say that abductive reasoning is highly contextual and is based on the specific details of the situation at hand. It requires a thorough understanding of the context in which an observation occurs, since the plausibility of a hypothesis often depends on nuanced aspects of the specific scenario. That can be transformed into a problem in Burge´s (1993) view, if the available evidence is incomplete or flawed because the reasoning process can lead to incorrect conclusions.

== RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF REASONING ==
Each of the three different types of reasoning play a crucial role in how we arrive at conclusions, whether we are dealing with universal truths, general patterns, or the best possible explanations for specific phenomena. Understanding the differences between these types of reasoning helps clarify how humans engage with knowledge and decision-making in various contexts (Burks, 1946). We would start by pointing out the '''differences''' between the three of them.

Deduction and induction are the two variants under which the scientific paradigm of the forms of reasoning was developed. However, abduction allows the formulation of hypotheses that attempt to give a rational explanation to a phenomenon or event; and even though it does not have the firmness attributed to the other two, it makes possible a progress in scientific thought. The goal of induction is to prove or establish the hypothesis and deduction must explain it (Burks, 1946).

Villar (2008) states that abduction prepares for the unexpected, but it is based on a more sophisticated idea of regularity than the other two forms of reasoning. For abductive thinking, regularity exists in a covert form in all phenomena; covert because when a certain unexpected event occurs, when we try to understand it, we intuitively seek an explanation. This means that we consider it explainable and, therefore, susceptible of being ordered under some category.

To be able to better detect the differences between the inductive and deductive reasoning, this example is presented by Soler (2012):

# Deductive Method:
#* All mammals have lungs.
#* All rabbits are mammals.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
# Inductive Method:
#* All rabbits that were observed have lungs.
#* Therefore, all rabbits have lungs.
Note that in deductive reasoning the premises must first be known before a conclusion can be reached, while in inductive reasoning the conclusion is reached by observing examples and generalizing them to the whole class (Soler, 2012).

In conclusion, there are some key differences that we must know and take into account. The first one is certainty. In Moore & Parker (2012) words, deductive reasoning is the most certain one between the three of them because if premises are true, the conclusion is true. Then, the inductive reasoning provides probable conclusions, due to the generalizations being based on the specific data. So, abductive reasoning gives us plausible conclusions because it tries to give the best explanation based on the evidence that is available at the moment.

For Hume (1739) the direction is another notorious difference between them. On the one hand, deductive reasoning goes from general to specific, so top-down. On the other hand, inductive reasoning goes from specific to general, bottom-up. Finally, abductive reasoning goes from the observations of the evidence that is available at the moment to plausible explanations, so it is influenced by the best explanation.

The last key difference is presented by Peirce (1932) and it is the outcome. Deductive reasoning ends up with valid guaranteed conclusions. Inductive reasoning, on the contrary, with likely but uncertain conclusions; and, abductive reasoning with hypotheses or the best possible explanation.

Although there exist several differences between them, some '''similarities''' are also presented.

For Villar (2008) induction and deduction depend on the regularity of events, which is ultimately a reliable way of asserting oneself on the data of experience. They are linked to experience with firmer ties. Induction affirms itself directly on repeated verifications of the selected phenomenon (although not so many as to be perfect) and deduction is founded on a law that it takes from induction transforming it in its scheme into indisputable (considering it perfect). Both reasonings are based on an equivocation that is pretended to be non-existent in order to arrive at an idea of correspondence between the world of reasoning and that of experience and are related to a theory of knowledge of the truth of propositions called “correspondence theory”.

First, the logical Process. Lipton (1991) says that deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning all follow logical processes to move from premises or observations to conclusions or hypotheses. Each method relies on a system of inference, whether it is deducing conclusions from general rules, generalizing from observations, or inferring the most likely explanation from available data''.''

Second, involvement of evidence proposed by Nickerson (1998). All three types of reasoning depend on evidence to derive conclusions. In deductive reasoning, the evidence consists of premises, while in inductive and abductive reasoning, it involves observations or data. The role of evidence is central to the reasoning process, as it helps determine the validity and strength of the conclusions drawn.

Third, the three of them share the willingness to search for plausibility (Lipton, 1991). While the degree of certainty varies across the three types, all forms of reasoning involve some search for plausibility. In each case, the reasoning process aims to find an explanation that best fits the available evidence.

According to the '''relation''' between the three of them, Villar (2008) says that the three types are interrelated in the sense that they all seek to reach conclusions or explanations, but each does so in a different way and in different contexts. Although they have different approaches and processes, they often complement each other and can be used together to address complex problems.

First, Villar (2008) presents the relationship between deductive and inductive reasoning. Both types of reasoning are interrelated because the conclusions of inductive reasoning can become premises for deductive reasoning. For example, a scientist may induce a general theory from a series of experiments and then use deductive reasoning to test that theory with new hypotheses or specific predictions.

Secondly, Soler (2012) presents the relationship between inductive and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning are also connected, since both are used when starting from specific facts or situations. For example, in science, researchers may use inductive reasoning to observe data and find regularities, and then apply abductive reasoning to propose a plausible, that might not be necessarily definitive, explanation for those patterns. In his essay, ''Abductive Reasoning in Classical Logic'' (2012), he also states that deductive and abductive reasoning can also work in a complementary way. Abductive reasoning can be the first step in generating a theory or hypothesis, which can then be evaluated and confirmed (or refuted) by deductive reasoning. To summarize, abduction is nourished by deduction, since abduction after generating the hypothesis produces prediction of consequences (Martín, 2015).

== OBSTACLES FOR REASONING ==
According to psychologist Christopher Dwyer (2021) and LinkedIn’s article (n.d.) there are things that present an obstacle for reasoning.

# '''Trusting your gut:''' this is common advice that you may have heard multiple times in your life. Despite that, it can be a big obstacle to reasoning and critical thinking. In the past, intuitive judgment has been described as "the absence of analysis" (Hamm, 1988). That intuitive judgment operates automatically and cannot be voluntarily "turned off," so that means that associated errors and unsupported biases are difficult to prevent.
# '''Lack of knowledge:''' the barrier here may not necessarily be a lack of topic knowledge, but perhaps rather believing that you have enough knowledge to make a critically thought-out judgment when this is not the case or lacking the willingness to gain additional, relevant topic knowledge.
# '''Social Pressures:''' they are influences or expectations from others that affect our behavior and decisions, often leading to conformity. To overcome them, one must assert independence, respect diversity, and communicate effectively.
# '''Emotional barriers:''' Emotional barriers are feelings or emotions that interfere with our ability to think clearly and objectively. They can be triggered by stress, fear, anger, sadness, or other factors. This can lead to jumping to conclusions, overgeneralizing, or personalizing issues. To overcome emotional barriers, you need to recognize and manage your emotions, separate facts from feelings, and use empathy and compassion.
# '''Close mind:''' if you are close indeed it might be difficult for you to acknowledge different perspectives. In conclusion, it is going to be difficult or nearly impossible to conclude with a critical statement if you had not investigated different points of view. It is important to be cognitively flexible and avoid rigidity in thinking; tolerate divergent or conflicting views and treat all viewpoints alike, prior to subsequent analysis and evaluation; to detach from one’s own beliefs and consider, seriously, points of view other than one’s own without bias or self-interest; to be open to feedback by accepting positive feedback, and to not reject criticism or constructive feedback without thoughtful consideration; to amend existing knowledge in light of new ideas and experiences; and to explore such new, alternative, or "unusual" ideas.

== THE ROLE OF REASONING IN THE MODERN WORLD ==
Reasoning plays an essential role in modern society. With the rapid advancement of technology, the rise of information overload, and the complexity of global challenges, the ability to reason effectively is more important than ever. Whether it’s in technology, education, or ethics, reasoning helps us make decisions, solve problems, and navigate the challenges of our everyday lives.

=== Reasoning in Technology and Artificial Intelligence ===
One of the most significant areas where reasoning is crucial today is in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems rely heavily on reasoning to process data, make decisions, and predict outcomes. For example, in machine learning, algorithms use '''inductive reasoning''' to identify patterns in large datasets. These systems look for trends in the data and make predictions based on those trends. As machine learning systems get more sophisticated, they can make decisions with increasing accuracy, but their reasoning is still based on data rather than human intuition (Russell & Norvig, 2020).

However, the use of reasoning in AI raises some ethical concerns. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means they can unintentionally reinforce biases present in the data. For instance, if an AI system is trained on biased data, it could make unfair decisions, such as in hiring or criminal justice. This is why reasoning in the development of AI must be guided by ethical principles, to ensure that the technology serves everyone fairly (O'Neil, 2016). This demonstrates that while reasoning in technology has great potential, it also requires careful consideration of its consequences.

=== Reasoning in Education ===
Reasoning is also a key component of education. In today’s world, students are expected not just to memorize information but to think critically about it and apply it in different contexts. Educational systems, especially in places like the United States, emphasize critical thinking and reasoning skills. For example, the '''Common Core State Standards''' in the U.S. focus on developing reasoning abilities in subjects like mathematics and reading. The goal is to ensure that students can analyze problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions based on evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).

Moreover, with the increasing amount of information available online, reasoning helps students distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. As social media platforms become a major source of news and information, people need strong reasoning skills to evaluate the credibility of what they read. This ability to think critically—whether using '''deductive''' or '''inductive reasoning'''—is necessary for navigating a world full of misinformation (Tufekci, 2017).

In higher education, reasoning is essential for problem-solving in fields like science, law, and business. For instance, when students study scientific methods or engage in legal reasoning, they are trained to use both deductive reasoning (to apply established principles) and inductive reasoning (to make generalizations from specific observations). These skills help them make well-informed decisions in their professional lives.

=== Reasoning and Ethics in the Modern Era ===
Reasoning is also central to the ethical challenges we face in today’s society. As technology advances, we are faced with tough ethical questions that require careful reasoning. For example, reasoning plays a role in tackling global challenges like climate change. Scientists use '''inductive reasoning''' to make predictions about future climate patterns based on historical data. Similarly, '''deductive reasoning''' is used in policymaking to develop laws and regulations aimed at protecting the environment. However, reasoning in these areas is not always straightforward, as it often involves complex trade-offs between economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity (Zuboff, 2019).

== REASONING VS FEELINGS ==

=== The Role of Reason ===
Reason is the human faculty responsible for recognizing and organizing the data of existence. It operates by observing facts, identifying patterns, and forming logical connections. This process is volitional, meaning it depends on the active choice to engage in thought and validate conclusions. Reason enables humans to maintain a direct and objective relationship with reality, ensuring that their beliefs and decisions align with observable facts (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Role of Feelings ===
Feelings or emotions, on the other hand, are reactive by nature. They arise as automatic responses to prior mental evaluations, regardless of how those evaluations were reached. The judgments underlying emotions may be correct or flawed, explicitly held or subconscious. Crucially, emotions themselves lack the capacity for observation, volition, or validation. They cannot independently assess their relationship to reality or guide actions rationally (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Misconception of Emotions as Evidence ===
Emotions are not tools of cognition. The presence of a feeling indicates only that a person has arrived at a certain mental conclusion, not that the conclusion is true or justified. To determine the validity of any idea, one must employ reason—a methodical process that examines and evaluates the relationship between ideas and reality. Feelings cannot perform this function; they are the result, not the means, of cognition (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Conflict Between Reason and Feelings ===
Apparent conflicts between reason and emotion often stem from contradictions in a person's explicit and subconscious ideas. For example, an individual might consciously adopt a belief while experiencing emotional resistance rooted in opposing subconscious premises. Resolving such conflicts requires introspection and rational analysis: identifying the ideas at the root of the feelings, examining their validity, and aligning them with consciously verified conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Correct Hierarchy ===
The proper relationship between reason and emotion in human life is one of sequence:

# '''Reason comes first''', as it is the primary faculty of cognition.
# '''Emotions follow as a derivative''', reflecting the conclusions of one's reasoning.

This sequence ensures that actions and decisions are rooted in reality, with emotions serving as meaningful, contextually appropriate responses to rational conclusions (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== The Danger of Emotionalism ===
Reversing this hierarchy—placing feelings above reason—leads to emotionalism, where desires and emotions dictate actions regardless of their connection to reality. This inversion substitutes a subjective "I feel, therefore it is" for the objective "It is, therefore I feel." Such an approach undermines cognition, distorts perception, and disconnects an individual from objective reality, often leading to evasion and self-delusion (Objetivismo, n.d.).

=== Practical Responsibility ===
To live rationally, one must distinguish between thought and feeling, monitoring their mental processes to ensure emotions do not dictate cognitive activities. While emotions play an essential role in human life—motivating actions, fostering relationships, and enriching experiences—they must be grounded in rational thought to maintain harmony between one’s inner life and the external world (Objetivismo, n.d.).

In conclusion, reason is the only reliable means of cognition, while emotions, though vital, are secondary and derivative. A rational person allows reason to guide their understanding and actions, shaping their emotions accordingly. This alignment ensures both intellectual integrity and psychological well-being (Objetivismo, n.d.).

== CONCLUSION ==
To conclude, it has been cleared that the capacity of reasoning is the virtue that makes us different from other living species. It gives us the capacity to draw conclusions, make decisions and solve problems effectively (Njoya, 2024).

Inside the reasoning, each type of reasoning plays a vital role depending on the context. Together, these reasoning methods form a comprehensive toolkit for navigating complex problems and making informed, reasoned judgments. Understanding their differences, strengths, and limitations allows individuals to apply the appropriate form of reasoning in different situations, helping in the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills (Nickerson, 1998).

This understanding is essential since reasoning plays a critical role in shaping the modern world too, influencing technology, education, ethics, and our personal decision-making. In the context of artificial intelligence, reasoning ensures data is processed accurately, but also raises important ethical concerns, highlighting the need for responsible AI development. In education, reasoning fosters critical thinking, enabling students to navigate an overwhelming amount of information and make informed decisions. Ethically, reasoning helps address complex global challenges like climate change, balancing economic and environmental considerations.

Ultimately, reason is the primary tool for understanding reality, guiding human actions, while emotions, though important, should follow reason to maintain coherence and integrity in our thoughts and behaviors. A rational approach, grounded in objective analysis, allows individuals and societies to make decisions that align with truth and reality, avoiding the distortions of emotionalism.

== BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ==
Aliseda, A. (1998). La abducción como cambio epistémico: C. S. Peirce y las teorías epistémicas en inteligencia artificial. ''Analogía, 12''(1), 125-144.

Anders, V. (s. f.). ''RAZ N''. Etimologías de Chile - Diccionario Que Explica el Origen de las Palabras. <nowiki>https://etimologias.dechile.net/?razo.n</nowiki>

Anderson, E. (1992). Filosofía de la abducción: Peirce y Poe. ''Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica (NRFH), 40''(2), 699-705. [https://doi.org/10.24201/nrfh.v40i2.897]

Aristotle, Cooke, H. P., & Tredennick, H. (1938). ''Aristotle: the Organon''. Harvard University Press; W. Heinemann, Ltd.

Burge, T. (1993)''. Content Preservation''. The Philosophical Review, ''102''(4), 457–488.

BURKS, Arthur W. (1946). ''Peirce´s Theory of Abduction'', Philosophy of Science, 13, 301-306.

Cambridge dictionary (n.d). ''Reason'' [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reasoning.]

Cárdenas, J. A. S. (n.d.). The abductive method of scientific research. Its origins in US dark romanticism and some reflections and examples regarding multicultural contexts and the teaching of music in deglobalization. ''NEUMA, 12''(1), 60-75.

Cole, M. (n.d.). ''Inductive & deductive reasoning unit''. Professor Cole. Retrieved December 7, 2024, from [https://www.professorcole.com/inductive--deductive-reasoning-unit.html]

Dávila Newman, G. (2006). El razonamiento inductivo y deductivo dentro del proceso investigativo en ciencias experimentales y sociales. ''Laurus, 12''(Ext), 180-205.

Dienes, Z. (2001). ''An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic''. Oxford University Press.

Dwyer, C., PhD. (2021). ¿Qué nos impide pensar críticamente en situaciones cotidianas?''Psychology Today''. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/es/blog/5-obstaculos-para-el-pensamiento-critico]

Eagleton, T. (2009). ''Reason, faith, and revolution: Reflections on the God debate.'' Yale University Press.

Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Deductive Reasoning. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), ''The Psychology of Human Thought: An Introduction'' (S. 113-132). Heidelberg University Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.470.c6670]

Facione, P. A. (2016). ''Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction''. California Academic Press.

Hamm, R. M. (1988). Clinical intuition and clinical analysis: expertise and the cognitive continuum. In J. Dowie & A. Elstein (Eds.), Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making, 78–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1739-1740). ''A Treatise of Human Nature''.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). ''How We Reason''. Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). ''Critique of pure reason'' (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).

Kahneman, D. (2011). ''Thinking, Fast and Slow''. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). ''The structure of scientific revolutions.'' University of Chicago Press.

Lipton, P. (2004). ''Inference to the Best Explanation''. Routledge.

LinkedIn. (n.d.). ''What are the most common obstacles to effective reasoning?'' LinkedIn. [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/what-most-common-obstacles-effective-reasoning?lang=en]

López, R. (2003). Origen, despliegue y exceso de la razón. ''Comunicación Y Medios'', (14), 123 – 132. [https://doi.org/10.5354/rcm.v0i14.12169]

Martinez Cabrera, F. (1987). '''''El método inductivo'''''. [Thesis]. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Monterrey.

Martín, M. del C. P. (2015). Abducción, método científico e Historia. Un acercamiento al pensamiento de Charles Peirce. ''Revista Paginas, 7''(14), 125.

Millas, J. (1970). ''Idea de la Filosofía''. Universitaria. Santiago. 1970

Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). ''Critical Thinking''. McGraw-Hill.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). ''Common core state standards for mathematics''. [https://www.corestandards.org/Math/]

Njoya, W. (2024). ''Entender la razón es primordial para entender la libertad''. Mises Institute. [https://mises.org/es/mises-wire/entender-la-razon-es-primordial-para-entender-la-libertad]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). ''Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises''. Review of General Psychology.

Objetivismo (n.d.). ''La razón como único metido de conocimiento del hombre – OPAR''. Objetivismo.org. [https://objetivismo.org/la-razon-como-unico-medio-de-conocimiento-del-hombre-opar-5-2/]

O'Neil, C. (2016). ''Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy''. Crown Publishing Group.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2000). ''Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life''. Pearson Education.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce''. Harvard University Press.
Russell, B. (1945). ''A history of Western philosophy.'' Simon & Schuster.

Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). ''Artificial intelligence: A modern approach'' (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

Santayana, G. (2020). Introducción a ''La vida de la razón'': el objeto de esta obra, sus métodos y sus antecedentes. ''Limbo,'' (40), 95-118.

Sauce, B. & D. Matzel, L. (2017). Inductive Reasoning. In Book: ''Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior'' (pp.1-8). Springer International Publishing.

Soler, F. (2012). Razonamiento abductivo en lógica clásica. ''Cuadernos de lógica, epistemología y lenguaje'' (Vol. 2). College Publications.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). ''Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest''. Yale University Press.

Villar, M. (2008). Los limites del razonamiento; el pensamiento abductivo. ''AdVersuS, Revista de Semiótica,'' 12-13, 120-132.

Zuboff, S. (2019). ''The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power''. PublicAffairs.

File:I.R.png

2024-12-27T12:32:28Z

Irene Hernandez Gonzalez:

Inductive Reasoning