Movement from the general to the particular. One of the principles of the Torah is "from the general to the particular and from the particular to the general." What does it mean? What gives deductive logic in life

I think that a common person uses too little in life the approach "from a general principle to a particular application." I have long been interested in the topic of "effective learning". Obviously, although the subject itself may be very different, the methods of teaching will be very similar. There is even such a science, you may have heard - pedagogy. But does this science really have great achievements? Doesn't a bunch of constantly emerging and disappearing new concepts indicate that pedagogy is still in its infancy?

I will give one specific example about the principle of "from the general to the particular". I have long been interested in learning how to tie various tricky knots. Well, sea, there are climbing. Tie, finally. I don't often have to tie my tie these days. And before, when I wore a suit to work, most often I just loosened the knot and then tightened it again. I think a lot of men do this. I heard a lot of anecdotal stories about men who just can’t remember how to tie a simple tie knot (in fact, there are quite a few of these knots). Finally, I got tired of it, I decided to figure it out and remember. But mechanical memorization of the sequence of actions is inefficient. Isn't it possible to find general principle"and in this case? I figured out what he is. The same “relaxed and tightened the knot”! What does it say? The fact that one end (narrow) of the tie, in fact, does not participate in the tying process at all, otherwise it would then be impossible to loosen or tighten the knot. That is, the wide end is simply wrapped several times around the narrow end, I do not touch the narrow end. How exactly it is wrapped - it also becomes clear when you imagine its appearance. The result - I remembered not “how to tie a knot”, but the main principle of the knot, and although I had not tied it for more than a year, now I easily tied it.

It is in this direction - as far as possible, in the rejection of remembering specific details and the transition to understanding the general idea that, in my opinion, the general principle of learning should be found. I have already given examples from the book “How People Gradually Came to True Arithmetic” by Bellyustin. There are many interesting things about this transition. For example, problem solving. A good teacher Belyustin understood this already at the beginning of the 20th century (the chapter on the “triple rule”):

Isn't it true that much of what was said by the teacher of the late XIX - early XX centuries about the school of his time can be successfully applied to the school of the late XX - early XXI centuries. The name “triple rule” has already disappeared from the school curriculum, but the principle itself has been preserved. Now, going over in my head things that I already know and understand well, I am amazed at how long the path to real awareness of these simple things was - through mechanical memorization that does not reveal the essence of the issue.

A very interesting example here is the concept of "amount of substance" in chemistry (mole, molar mass, etc.). I had to observe how schoolchildren even operated with them, solved problems, without completely understanding the essence of this concept. And when you don’t understand what you are working with, a step left-step right can lead to unpleasant consequences. Explaining the concept even to a schoolboy is very simple! But our school and all of us are suffering from science. It is easy to write in a textbook - as if to belittle the status of both Science and the Teacher.

The TSB says: “A mole is a unit of the amount of a substance, i.e., a quantity estimated by the number of identical structural elements contained in a physical system (atoms, molecules, ions and other particles or their specific groups). M. is equal to the amount of substance of a system containing as many structural elements (particles) as there are atoms in a carbon nuclide 12C weighing 0.012 kg (exactly) (i.e. 6.022 10, see Avogadro number)." The textbook on chemistry says about the same. This is correct - but is it clear to the fifth grader? And on such a shaky foundation (and the concept of the amount of a substance and the understanding of the reaction “molecule with molecule, not gram with gram” directly related to it is the foundation of chemistry), they “teach” chemistry.

Of course, in a situation where a student does not want to study and does not want to understand anything, the temptation of “formal” education arises. Let him say, at least, that “a mole is a unit of the amount of a substance, i.e., a quantity estimated by the number of identical structural elements contained in a physical system ...” Then you can just as “formally” check his knowledge in the exam (Question: What is "mole"? Answer: a) ... b) ... c) a unit of quantity of a substance, i.e., a quantity estimated by the number of identical structural elements contained in a physical system ... "d) ...), make sure that he "knows" what a mole is and settle down with that. But another question - is it really easier? After all, such tension, memorizing literally “spells”, some incomprehensible sequences of words, some kind of abracadabra, in itself requires a considerable amount of stress of the mind and memory.

Now this rule is pure form they don't teach at school. But the “rule of the cross” for solving chemical problems is, in essence, what it is.

Deduction is a method of thinking, the consequence of which is a logical conclusion, where a particular conclusion is derived from a general one.

“With just one drop of water, a person who knows how to think logically can deduce the existence of the Atlantic Ocean or Niagara Falls, even if he has not seen either one or the other,” the most famous literary detective reasoned. Taking into account small details invisible to other people, he built impeccable logical conclusions using the deduction method. It was thanks to Sherlock Holmes that the whole world learned what deduction is. In his reasoning, the great detective always started from the general - the whole picture of the crime with the alleged criminals, and moved to particular moments - considered each one individually, everyone who could commit a crime, studied motives, behavior, evidence.

This amazing hero of Conan Doyle could guess from which part of the country a person came from the particles of soil on his shoes. He also distinguished one hundred and forty kinds of tobacco ash. Sherlock Holmes was interested in absolutely everything, had extensive knowledge in all areas.

What is the essence of deductive logic

The deductive method begins with a hypothesis that a person believes to be true a priori, and then he must verify it with the help of observations. Books on philosophy and psychology define this concept as a conclusion built on the principle from the general to the particular according to the laws of logic.

Unlike other types of logical reasoning, deduction deduces a new thought from others, leading to a specific conclusion applicable in a given situation.

The deductive method allows our thinking to be more concrete and efficient.

The bottom line is that deduction is based on the derivation of the particular on the basis of general premises. In other words, these are arguments based on confirmed, generally accepted and well-known general data, which lead to a logical factual conclusion.

The deductive method is successfully applied in mathematics, physics, scientific philosophy and economics. Doctors and lawyers also need to apply the skills of deductive reasoning, but they will be useful for representatives of any profession. Even for writers working on books, the ability to understand characters and draw conclusions based on empirical knowledge is important.

Deductive logic is a philosophical concept, it has been known since the time of Aristotle, but it began to be developed intensively only in the nineteenth century, when the developing mathematical logic gave impetus to the development of the doctrine of the deductive method. Aristotle understood deductive logic as evidence with syllogisms: reasoning with two messages and one conclusion. The high cognitive or cognitive function of deduction was also emphasized by Rene Descartes. In his works, the scientist contrasted it with intuition. In his opinion, it directly reveals the truth, and deduction comprehends this truth indirectly, that is, through additional reasoning.

In everyday reasoning, deduction is rarely used in the form of a syllogism or two messages and one conclusion. Most often, only one message is indicated, and the second message, as well-known and recognized by all, is omitted. The conclusion is also not always formulated explicitly. The logical connection between messages and conclusions is expressed by the words "here", "therefore", "means", "therefore".

Examples of using the method

A person who conducts deductive reasoning in its entirety is likely to be mistaken for a pedant. Indeed, arguing on the example of the following syllogism, such conclusions may be too artificial.

The first part: "All Russian officers cherish military traditions." Second: "All keepers of martial traditions are patriots." Finally, the conclusion: "Some patriots are Russian officers."

Another example: "Platinum is a metal, all metals conduct electricity, so platinum is electrically conductive."

Quote from a joke about Sherlock Holmes: “The driver welcomes the hero Conan Doyle, saying that he is glad to see him after Constantinople and Milan. To Holmes' surprise, the driver explains that he learned this information from the tags on the luggage. And this is an example of using the deductive method.

Examples of Deductive Logic in Conan Doyle's Novel and McGuigan's Sherlock Holmes Series

What is deduction in the artistic interpretation of Paul McGuigan becomes clear in the following examples. A quote embodying the deductive method from the series: “This man has the bearing of an ex-military man. His face is tanned, but it's not his skin tone, since his wrists aren't as dark. The face is tired, as after a serious illness. Keeps his hand motionless, most likely, was once wounded in it. Here Benedict Cumberbatch uses the method of inference from the general to the particular.

Often deductive conclusions are so truncated that they can only be guessed at. It can be difficult to restore deduction in full, indicating two messages and a conclusion, as well as logical connections between them.

Quote from Detective Conan Doyle: “Because I have been using deductive logic for so long, inferences flow through my head at such a speed that I do not even notice intermediate conclusions or relationships between two positions.”

What gives deductive logic in life

Deduction will be useful in everyday life, business, work. The secret of many people who have achieved outstanding success in various fields of activity lies in the ability to use logic and analyze any actions, calculating their outcome.

In the study of any subject, the approach of deductive thinking will allow you to consider the object of study more carefully and from all sides, at work - to make the right decisions and calculate efficiency; and in everyday life - it is better to navigate in building relationships with other people. Therefore, deduction can improve the quality of life when used properly.

The incredible interest shown in deductive reasoning in various fields of scientific activity is absolutely understandable. After all, deduction allows one to obtain new laws and axioms from an already existing fact, event, empirical knowledge, moreover, exclusively theoretically, without applying it in experiments, solely thanks to observations. Deduction gives a full guarantee that the facts obtained as a result of a logical approach, operations will be reliable and true.

Speaking about the importance of a logical deductive operation, one should not forget about the inductive method of thinking and substantiating new facts. Almost all general phenomena and conclusions, including axioms, theorems and scientific laws, appear as a result of induction, that is, the movement of scientific thought from the particular to the general. Thus, inductive considerations are the basis of our knowledge. True, this approach in itself does not guarantee the usefulness of the acquired knowledge, but inductive method causes new assumptions, connects them with knowledge established by experience. Experience in this case is the source and basis of all our scientific ideas about the world.

Deductive reasoning - powerful remedy knowledge is used to obtain new facts and knowledge. Together with induction, deduction is a tool for understanding the world.

What happens in a person's life is determined by how he thinks. In fact, in life he recreates the picture that is in his head. In my opinion, this is very important, so there will be quite a few articles devoted to thinking.

In this article, we will analyze one of the functions of thinking, namely the transitions from the general to the particular and vice versa. It is this process that largely determines the flexibility of thinking, and the ability to find ways to solve problems and tasks.

There is a phrase with which it is difficult to disagree: "Sometimes the formulation of the problem is the main problem." Indeed, sometimes people use initially dead-end formulations, which, by definition, contain the impossibility of solving it. For example, women often formulate a relationship problem with their husband as “he is oppressing me,” which obviously leads the thinking along the path that in order to solve this problem, the husband must stop doing it. Accordingly, the solution to the problem is associated with a change in another person, which lies beyond our direct influence. After all, as you know, we cannot change another person. As a result, a dead end.

If you change the wording, focusing on your circle of influence, for example, “I allow myself to be oppressed,” a whole range of questions immediately arises that will allow you to solve the problem. For example: “why do I allow myself to be oppressed” / “how can I learn to defend my interests”? Etc. But all formulations are connected with self-correction. What is real, unlike trying to change another person. Moreover, from a competent formulation of the problem, its solution automatically follows.

The problem can be formed at the private level.

For example, you are holding two sheets of paper and you say "I need glue to stick two sheets of paper together." Such a formulation initially sets the framework for thinking, because it implies a limited number of solutions. In this case, one option. If there is glue, you will solve the problem, if not, the problem cannot be solved.

If we move from the particular to the general: “I need to connect two sheets of paper”, it instantly expands the number of options for solving the problem. Now not only glue is suitable for you, but also adhesive tape, a stapler, plasticine, chewing gum and further on a huge list. Obviously, in this case, the probability of solving the problem increases significantly, due to the emergence of many options.

As a result, in order to solve the problem, we needed to move from the particular to the general. Evaluate the options and available resources, and then go back to private by selecting one of the options.

Often people formulate the problem at a general level. "I want to start a business." “Relationships are difficult. Something is going wrong". "I'm having trouble selling." Solutions to a problem never follow from formulations at a general level. The private level allows you to draw up a plan of action. The general level is amorphous and incomprehensible.

What kind of business to open and what is needed for this? What exactly is happening in relationships, how to improve them? What's going on with sales specifically? All this depends on many factors.

The formulations at the general level testify to two things.

Firstly, a person has a “porridge” in his head, which he will not cook until he formulates without specifics.

Secondly, a plan of action does not follow from the general formulations. Accordingly, it is necessary to go from the general to the particular, breaking up the problem into its constituent elements and examining each element separately.

For effective thinking, it is very important to be able to move from one level to another in time, especially if you realize that you are reaching a dead end. In my opinion, timely transitions from the particular to the general and vice versa largely determine the flexibility of thinking, and, accordingly, the ability to find solutions to problems. How it works? Let's take a look at a recent example.

The businesswoman addressed. The owner of a network of clothing stores in several shopping centers in different cities. Request: “Some crap with sales. I do not know what to do". In other words, a wording at a general level that cannot answer the question of what to do. You need to go to the private level.

Accordingly, it is necessary to highlight the elements that make up the sales process in mall. Next, I omit the details and show the principle of transition from the general to the particular and vice versa.

For example, what does the shopping process look like in a mall? The buyer must come to the mall itself. Then he must go to the store. He must make a purchase in the store.

In total, there are three main elements:

1. Visiting a shopping center.

2. Permeability of the store.

3. Conversion. (the ratio of those who entered and bought.)

▸ Look at the second element. We study statistics. If the traffic in the shopping center has not fallen significantly, and the store's traffic has decreased, then perhaps the problem lies precisely in this segment. Again, we go to a more general level and compile a list of factors that affect the attendance of a store in a shopping center. Not tied to a specific situation. It will turn out to be a rather large list, from shop windows and mannequins, to changes in customer flows in the shopping center (for example, they moved an exit, or an anchor opened in another place). After that, you need to go back to private. Correlate all the factors influencing store attendance with how things are in reality.

Having completed this action, we will get a picture of which of the items “sags” and an action plan to increase store traffic.

▸ Suppose we analyzed all the points and found out that the patency has not decreased. We turn to the consideration of the third element of the system.

There are many factors that affect the conversion rate. Here you need to evaluate the collection, staff, product matrix, merchandising and much more. Then you can also go to a more general level, writing down all the points, how it should work in the ideal version (there is such a way of thinking, which is called the “ideal option”). Then again return to the private, that is, a specific store and determine what can be done in this case. As you can see, with this approach, an action plan is determined to increase sales.

What do we get as a result? If the problem is in the first element, then here is your list of actions.

For example, in this case it is impossible to influence the attendance of the shopping center. But if the attendance has fallen, then this may be the subject of negotiations for an increase in rent. Or moving the store to another place and so on.

The problem of the second element is solved by another set of measures. The same goes for the third element. But now we have moved from “porridge” in the head in the form of “shitty sales” to understanding the structure and a specific plan of action.

As you can see, this is achieved through transitions from the general to the particular and vice versa. Moreover, there may be several such transitions. In general, this is the flexibility of thinking, the ability to timely and easily “travel” through these levels.

A similar story occurs when the problem is initially formulated at the private level. For example, the company is expanding and the management is puzzling over which of the current employees can lead the department. Usually it all starts with a choice: Petrov, Ivanov, Sidorov and Vasechkin. And then it turns out that Petrov is “not a leader”, he cannot be promoted. It seems that Ivanov can be promoted, but he will not cope with Petrov. Etc.

In such cases, the transition to the general level, that is, the definition of the portrait of the leader, helps. Abstract, without reference to personality. Then it may turn out that the best option is to take a person from outside, because in reality none of the existing options is suitable.

Or, for example, the wording: "I want to marry Petya." This is a private level and it seems to be natural in matters of relationships. And if we go to a more general formulation, then it turns out that in fact you want a happy family. With this option, a particular Petya may just be out of the list of potential options for a happy relationship.

Why do I think this is important? The thinking of any person is within certain limits. This is fine. By moving from one level to another, you can go beyond the existing framework of thinking, and it turns out that it is there that the solution to the problem lies.

The topic of thinking frames is very important and I will definitely return to it, because the most “evil jokes” with us are made by thinking frames, which are derivatives of our previous success. A person who does not know how to go beyond the existing framework of thinking often finds himself in a dead end. He doesn't know what to do and makes bad decisions.

If you encounter a problem that confuses you, then try the following.

1. Formulate a problem and write it down on a piece of paper.

2. Try to determine at what level the problem is formulated. General or private.

3. Reframe the problem on a different level.

4. If you have moved from the private to the general, then in order to understand the action plan, you will need to go back to the private level.
This will give you several options.

I think that many use the simple skill of thinking given in the article intuitively, and now they will be able to do it consciously.