Primordial Construct: IF Qualifier Statements

Here we have a table of ‘I’ ‘F’ qualifier statements and their corresponding reasoning methods. Notice ‘In fact’ and ‘It’s your fault’ have no valid reasoning methods associated with them. ‘In fact’ conclusions result from the compatibility of consensus opinions, and ‘It’s your fault’ conclusions result from the incompatibility of opinion differences or misunderstandings.

In feedback «	In fashion Δ	In the future »
	Is a form of N Associative	In fact ↑
If...then – Deductive	It follows ≈	I feel + Inductive
It's your fault ↓	I've found $ Abductive

To be effective, all the reasoning methods combined must support an unequivocally true conclusion. Here we see two lines of reasoning that use ‘IF’ statement cycles to reach a conclusion. The arguments cycle counterclockwise around the reasoning methods, and then conclude in the center. Primordial Construct symbols mark progress around the cycle. The two lines of reasoning differ in that one is rhetorical, heading toward ‘It’s your fault’, while the other is analytical, heading toward ‘In fact.’ Let's begin with the rhetorical cycle first.

Rhetorical IF Cycle
$	I’ve found compelling reasons to believe interstellar tourists are visiting Earth.	UFOs
+	I feel that interstellar tourists are visiting Earth due to anecdotal evidence.	reports
N	Perhaps a UFO is a form of interstellar tourist visiting Earth.	feasibility
–	If interstellar tourists are visiting Earth, then the implications are...	cover up
≈	It follows that interstellar tourists are visiting Earth.	UFOs?

Here’s a line of reasoning trying to conclude that interstellar tourists are visiting Earth. It begins in the south with observational evidence that UFOs exhibit unnatural motion that presumably can only be explained by control from an intelligent agent. In abductive reasoning we infer the unknown cause from the effect and a known cause. Appearance of UFOs predated human development of the necessary and sufficient technology, therefore some non human intelligent agent must control UFOs. From south we go counterclockwise to plus, where we consider the many reports of anecdotal evidence, including human observations, radar detection, photographic images, and video. The reinforcement of similar testimony tips the scale in inductive reasoning as we infer the responsible cause and rule from multiple effects.

From plus we go counterclockwise to north, where we reason by analogy that since humans can send spacecraft beyond the solar system, with more advanced technology interstellar travel is theoretically possible, and other, more advanced, intelligent agents might have already reached Earth. From north we go counterclockwise to minus, where we consider the implications. If interstellar tourists are visiting Earth, then what? If proof exists, then there must be a government cover up. Moving to the center, what can we conclude overall, besides UFOs are being observed?

If we are to debate this line of reasoning, where are the weak points? A rhetorical argument is tried in the court of public opinion, not fact, and a rhetorical argument is divisive by nature. UFOs and interstellar tourists are used as synonyms, which they are not. Man made objects may be misidentified as UFOs, and natural phenomena may be misidentified as UFOs, while some UFOs may be rare natural phenomena, for instance antimatter with antigravity properties that I've hypothesized in other blogs. How many, if any, UFOs are interstellar tourists is unknown. An argument from ignorance cannot be proved or disproved. Like the scales of justice, rhetorical evidence reinforces a position to produce a convincing argument. Lawyers and politicians often resort to rhetorical arguments to convince juries and constituents. Lawyers sell justice, whereas politicians sell an ideology to infer a future effect of peace and prosperity. Artists and musicians also aim to connect a produced effect to a general rule on an emotional or spiritual level. And the majority of women tend to communicate on an emotional level, within context.

The evidence supporting male female differences, shows a definite sex bias between deductive and inductive reasoning. According to temperament tests, male respondents show a sixty:forty preference for thinking over feeling, whereas female respondents show a sixty:forty preference for feeling over thinking. Thinking corresponds to deductive reasoning, and feeling corresponds to inductive reasoning. But temperament tests are of questionable merit because expressions of temperament are situational. To some degree we all use each of these reasoning methods depending upon circumstances, and past experience.

Analytical IF Cycle
+	I feel that an antimatter hypothesis is testable.	hypothesis
N	Perhaps antimatter exhibits a form of antigravity.	falsifiability
–	If antimatter has antigravity properties, then the implications are...	predictions
$	I’ve found incontrovertible evidence that antimatter exists, which is...	validation
+	It follows that antimatter does exist.	conclusion

The majority of men tend to use analytical arguments to convince peers by connecting a general rule to a specific effect. Here’s a line of reasoning trying to conclude that antimatter exists. It begins at plus with a hypothesis. We assume that gravitational forces exhibit symmetry just like electrostatic and magnetic forces. From plus we go counterclockwise to north, where we formulate a testable hypothesis. Perhaps antimatter exhibits a form of antigravity, so we can test antimatter for antigravity properties. From north we go counterclockwise to minus, where we consider the implications of antimatter with antigravity properties, which I've covered in other blogs. From minus we go counterclockwise to south, where we look for incontrovertible evidence.

So where’s the incontrovertible evidence for antimatter? Out testable hypothesis links antigravity with antimatter, but antimatter is rare by Earth standards, so we have none, or maybe some is hidden away at Area 51. The only way to preserve antimatter on Earth is sealed inside a vacuum, but finding naturally occurring antimatter implies antimatter planetary nebula, supernovas, black holes, and galaxies. Astronomical observations should be able to confirm anomalous interactions between matter and antimatter, between gravity and antigravity. Heck, if the rings of Saturn are made from antimatter, then that may explain their endurance. Or we might just capture antimatter in Earth orbit, or in Earth’s atmosphere, now that we have an idea about what we’re looking for.