"Not discarding" is a very careful use of words, seems you are merely avoiding seeming to say what you are actually saying, which is not to use experimentation, which is absurd.
You ignored this part:
Also, as I said above, I am not discarding experimentation.
Let me say that I'm not against experimentation or inductive reasoning, as if you were to look more into my OP, it would be quite clear that using the tools (Logic, Scientific Method, reasoning, etc) that's available to examine philosophical ideas and such is an example of inductive reasoning. However, I do believe that we should also use methods other than inductive reasoning, which is deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is useful for situations, for the here and now, where you don't have the time to get to familiarize yourself with things properly, HOWEVER, deductive reasoning is NOT empirical! It does not give "truths", it gives "hints", it is absolutely preposterous that humanity should base itself on the poverty of deductive reasoning, we'd be stuck in the same infinite looping of thought because we did not reach out into the unknown to get our answers (I think you've been watching Sherlock Holmes too much... which I have to remind you is pure fiction).
Deductive reasoning is about taking all of the commonalities of intertwined events to create an explanation and thus, a conclusion for them. Though it does involve making assumptions from the intuition (inductive reasoning also uses assumptions to explain things, only that inductive is "down-top" argument), deductive reasoning is just about examination into events just as inductive reasoning does, and so it is indeed a legitimate form of investigation.
By the way, I do not understand why you brought Sherlock Holmes into the picture, when I never read or watch anything about it nor even mention it in my posts. My "philosophy" draws upon those of Rationalist thought, with an Esoteric dimension, so this is a baseless accusation.
Deductive reasoning is recycling of what we already know, it does not give new information from which we can create new foundations of knowledge, it is merely polishing the corners of what we already have empirically validated.
Not true. As a matter of fact, you can actually make different and/or deeper conclusions with deductive reasoning, just as with inductive reasoning. "Recycling of what we already know" is not a form of investigation nor a form of thinking, but is a form of regurgitation, and is contrary to deduction and induction, that is, if you were to think and investigate for yourself instead of copying other philosophers, scientists, historians, etc.
And who is to judge that? Deductive reasoning is not going to give good long-term answers, it is a dead-end. You have to live the lie in order to know it's a lie with certainty. At best deductive reasoning can correlate hypothetical situations with empirically validated situations to arrive at approximate truths, or highly reliable truths, but at limited ability.
If you already know that the error was an error, then you should find ways to combat it and/or avoid it in the future. It's one thing to "live the lie" to know that it was a wrong path, but it is foolish to not know why it happened, and it is foolish not to know when to find a way to avoid the path so that way you can work on yourself.
You are not going to know that from inductive- or deductive reasoning, both induction and deduction is in fact a form of assumption, because you assume you have sufficient knowledge to judge. If you know economy for instance, a human made thing, we can't even predict that very good with deductive or inductive reasoning, because we have limited ability to know what we need to know. It could be catastrophic to start assuming you have sufficient knowledge to deal with that, instead of empirically validating any amount of hypothesis you have.
Well, even empiricism can have flaws as well, as it only relies on sensory experience instead of thinking about it as rationalists do (and the rationalists can also suffer from using too much thought instead of senses, vice versa). Empiricism and Rationalism both have to use evidence for their claims; they just use two different methods. In the case of economy, empiricism is a good way of getting data, but it still also includes rationalism as you need to come up with explanations as to why your axiom or hypothesis is true.
It is ironic that you will later on say that we should disentangle knowledge, when you are right here promoting the non-disentanglement of knowledge, but to add to the confusion, you start by saying that I'm wrong when I'm explaining that if you started anew you would loose the current progress from current experimentation, however, if you need to "retrace your steps" you would first have to walk them through, and a reboot would imply that you stopped doing what you're currently doing and so you would never know the end of the story, so to speak, and when retracing you'd not know the actual end to things and your retracing would be like filling the car with only half the fuel it needs to get you where you need to go.
Let me clarify what I am actually saying. Here are the points as to what I'm saying.
1. Starting anew means to stop and take a break and then reflect back upon what fact or research is looked at when there's confusion.
2. Retracing the steps means to go back and find the errors of such confusion, such as to why an event happened (for example, why a conflict had broke out).
3. "Disentanglement" is in relation to the last two points, which is to retrace and/or "start anew". Re-entanglement would result in finding another fact to rebind the knowledge together as to the event making more sense.
These are all points that can be utilized to a varying degree when researching or when thinking. Thus, there is no contradiction to what I've said.
Imagine you wanted to test the effects of alcohol, but stopped after you'd made yourself "tipsy", now ordinarily it's good to have some restraints, but you'd never actually know the paralysing effects of drunkenness if you never got drunk, and neither would you know all the fun you can have in the right situations by the effect of "bottled courage". Also, if you were to continue finding out later on, you would have to be tipsy twice (first, the time you half-finished the process, and then a second time before achieving drunkenness), increasing the time and effort you'd need to get to know the phenomena.
It would be a bad idea, if not foolish idea, to repeatedly get drunk just to find the effects of alcohol. If I were to be repeatedly drinking just to see the effects of alcohol, I'd be damaging my body and also possibly lapse into an addiction to it in the near future. There are times when doing things completely empirical are just not worth taking, such as drinking. As I've said before, it's one thing to encounter error once, but it another encounter it again and again.
Wait... wut? I'm describing the nature of knowledge, the way in which it works, and you want to go against nature?
Nothing to do with going against Nature; it's called finding truths within the abundance of knowledge.
There will never be an end to the confusion, you are assuming there is an end-point, and I want to know from where you get that idea.
Indeed, life goes on, but you ca still look back at it to know what's truly going on in our world of interesting times....
You mean separating the relevant pieces from each other? That's what disentanglement means. Entanglement means that things, because of history, relate to each other and have relevance towards each other, because of the dialectic development of knowledge as ideas that mix. The ideas of what is not true, are equally entangled with what is true, because through history, humans encounter crossings and have to choose direction, and then they've tested each direction seeing how far it can take them, and eventually they've figured out which is the best path to go. If you disentangle knowledge, you'll not get the link between the true and the non-true that verifies each one. You'd not get a very efficient association of knowledge either, because knowledge relates based on the relevance of the matter it is about. For instance, the history of mathematics relates to the history of physics intimately because of the way in which they've solved problems together and figured out the relationship between themselves, through entanglement. Disentangle them, and what remains is abstraction and confusion. You might think disentanglement leads to less confusion, but it will lead to just the opposite, things stop relating because the bond between them is cut.
You see, I have a different take on "disentanglement", which means that you are examining each sides of the story and weighing them out to see if they are truthful or not. To say that we cannot separate falsehoods from truth is limiting yourself to the possibility that it can be done, and is the reason why that there is confusion out there.
Patience has limited and very specific value. Too much patience is far from good, it makes people inefficient and unproductive.
Well, if you were to do the opposite of patience (which would mean to be hasty), then you will still be in confusion and more so frustration that things are not done or taken care of. Of course, frustration is inevitable, but dwelling in it is not.
The ends? Not sure what is meant by that... on the other hand, if I can understand what you mean, we may zoom on to something we can perhaps agree more on. There is certainly far too much doubt and confusion in societies today (talking specifically about the form of destructive doubt and confusion that leads to existential angst and despair), and I agree it can be mitigated, and I believe it can be mitigated by a more standardized way of understanding current scientific progress (making science more available and fronting quality science more).
"Scientific progress" has not solved the angst of many who are in despair in this society, but has masked it and even caused more problems. What makes you think that new technology (an example of "scientific progress") is going to make people happier, especially when they often go through more personal problems (ie. divorce, alienation, drug addiction, violence, drama)? The real issue is that this society is not functional in the way of helping humans, but that it itself has become a deathtrap in ensuring a demise of people's natural varying identity into artificial commercialization.
But some things we just simply don't know very well, and there's nothing we can really do about that but continue to develop science in that subject, as it would be counter-productive to use deduction or induction for "quick solutions" that most likely will result in people living lies believing that they are more secure and certain than they are, which in turn can lead to undesirable dependencies and action patterns in people. It is better then that they live out the maybe-lies as a living experiment and that we can figure out while we live in the maybe-lie whether it is in truth a lie or whether it is a truth, something we can depend upon with our knowledge.
Science has become nothing more than a banal establishment, with all its contradictory and complicated theories, and with all of its destructive medicines and destructive technology and weaponry that it has built. Continuing this lie will do nothing but ensure our downfall and will keep us from figuring out why they exist in the first place.
