How do you discover the truth? Do you blindly accept what others tell you is the truth without testing its veracity and validating its occurrences? Or do you research it and ferret out what it is actually revealing?

There are two types of analysis in regard to ferreting out the truth and standing on firm ground; objective and subjective.

In an objective analysis, you primarily use your physical observations of events, occurrences, situations, circumstances and the behavior of yourself and others to evaluate them with the mental processes of logic and reason. You effectively observe things ‘as they are’ without allowing your emotional perceptions to color them with personal agenda manifestation. In other words, you describe what you have observed without attaching any emotion to it whatsoever.

In a subjective analysis, you either emotionally color what you have observed by using the benchmark of whether or not it affects your survival; or you spiritually color your observations as to whether or not they beneficially or detrimentally affect the growth and expansion of yourself AND others.

Objective Analysis – Physical Observation and Mental Evaluation

Objective analysis is based on observation of the facts and subjective analysis is filtered through your belief system to determine its relevance to ability to function effectively in your world and develop ‘opinions’ about it. In order to understand the truth and how it pertains to your ongoing existence, you need to subject the apparent truth to a verification of its veracity and a testing of its validity. Logic affords you the tools to do so. In logic there are primarily two forms of arriving at ‘logical’ conclusions; deductive logic and inductive logic.

Generally speaking, deductive logic is performed by stating general premises and arriving at specific conclusions. Premisesare “propositions supporting or helping to support a conclusion [dictionary.com].” Conclusions are “propositions concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument [dictionary.com].” In other words the premises are the observed facts and the conclusions are the result of the objective interaction of the observed facts WITHOUT any coloring of the conclusions by any type of subjective analysis.

In inductive logic, generally speaking, specific premises are stated in order to arrive at general conclusions. These two forms are generally sufficient to verify the veracity of any event, occurrence, situation, circumstance or the behaviors of objects and people. However, if something occurs only once under certain conditions, it might not occur again under different conditions. This is why it is necessary to continually test its validity under varying conditions.

Science utilizes these techniques in what is called the hypothetico-inductive method where an experimenter designs an experiment under specified conditions; states what they hypothesize ‘will’ happen; conducts the experiment several times; evaluates the results of the experiment into conclusions; develops a theory based on the conditions of the experiment.

Logicians formulate premises to derive conclusions in what is called a syllogism. A syllogism is “an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C [dictionary.com].” For example, a deductive logic syllogism would state the following:

Premises:

1. The Sun is shining.
2. It is warm.

Conclusion: It is warm because the Sun is shining.

“Valid deductive arguments are where the premises logically entail the conclusion and where such entailment means that the truth of the premises provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).”

The most recognizable figure to utilize deductive logic was Sherlock Holmes. Holmes would discover a burning cigarette with lipstick on it when he arrived at the crime scene. He would deduce that the killer left within minutes before he arrived and was a woman. Pretty good deduction based on the facts. But was it valid? Most of the time it was. But what if the killer was a man who put on lipstick to trick the authorities? The first part of the conclusion was correct but the second part could be called faulty reasoning. Most of the time it wouldn’t be, but in this particular case it was.

Our egos are like the man who was wearing lipstick. It often tricks us into believing that our course of action is correct. It is to the ego, because it is concerned with self-preservation and survival. But in reality, it swayed the facts in order to convince others that it was real. The ego is the main reason people fool themselves every day.

Deductive Logic in its simplest form results in a set of general facts (premises) being deduced to a specific conclusion. A scientist can deduce (derive a conclusion based on the observed facts and logical assumptions) a conclusion from multiple premises:

The scientist walks out of the house and feels warmer when he walks into the yard. He goes back into the house and feels cooler. He deduces that when he walks out into the yard where the Sun is shining directly on him, that the warm feeling he gets is coming from the Sun. This is a logical deductive argument where the conclusion is assumed based on the facts.

Until the scientist measures the temperature inside the house and outside the house, the argument is true but not completely valid. If the measurement reveals that the inside temperature is 70 degrees and the outside temperature is 90 degrees, then the conclusion is more valid because it has been physically proven.

But what happens if the measuring device is inaccurate or the scientist has a fever and cannot rely on his senses to be accurate? Variables are always present when it comes to perception of the facts. Be aware of these variables when conducting any experiment!

Truth is a verified or indisputable fact that is observed by many to be an accurate analysis. Validity is the state where an experiment has been conducted with a significant sample, its premises are jointly asserted and the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. Contradiction is minimized only by the size and congruity of the sample data. For example, a scientist can induce (assert or establish based on a significant number of facts) a conclusion from multiple premises:

Premises:

1. Giraffe #1 is silent.
2. Giraffe #2 is silent.
3. Giraffe #3 is silent.

Conclusion: All giraffes are silent.

The scientist went into the field and observed the giraffes. This is his conclusion. Is his conclusion true? Yes it is; based on his data. Is it valid? No. Why? Because he only sampled 3 giraffes! If he had sampled 100 giraffes his conclusion would be true and more valid. If the entire world population of giraffes was 50,000 and the scientist sampled all of them and drew the same conclusion, then his results are completely valid. How many times does something have to happen to us before we not only accept it as true, but we accept it as being valid? Three times? Eight times? Once?

Things sometime appear to be true, but until we sample enough data and then draw conclusions, we cannot consider the results to be completely valid. The above process is known as Inductive Logic. Inductive Logic is a system of reasoning that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences. In its simplest form it is the results in a set of specific facts (premises) being induced to a general conclusion.

Science requires multiple procedures to be performed with a critical eye in order for its findings to be valid. It requires critical thinking in order to relay valuable information. Accurate reasoning is utilizing the principles of Logic and The Law of Parsimony to draw accurate conclusions. Reasoning is the process of forming inferences and conclusions from observed facts and logical premises. Logic is the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference based on observed facts.

The Law of Parsimony states that the explanation of a thing or event is made with the fewest possible assumptions and reduced to the simplest explanation. In other words, cut out the bull, remove the rose colored glasses and view the reality; no matter how harsh you might feel it is. There are no emotions involved in thinking critically.

Science seeks to discover the truth about all things. In order to arrive there many experiments must be conducted to get closer to the truth. The results of these experiments can yield conditional truths, but also have to be tested for validity. By removing the influences of the variables of affected sensory perception, inaccurate measuring devices, ego infiltration and data fudging, you can arrive at accurate conclusions. The more accurate your conclusions are, the more accurate you can be in developing a plan to remove any apparent detriments and maximize your abilities to understand and validate the truth.

Subjective Analysis – Emotional Reaction and Spiritual Proaction

Once you have established the truth of something based on the observable facts repeatedly yielding the same or similar results (validation), these conclusions are now filtered through your belief system and you arrive at your ‘perception’ of reality. Your belief system colors what you have observed by using the benchmark of whether or not it affects your survival. Now the ego comes into play to define and ‘judge’ what is occurring and whether or not it ensures or threatens your individual survival.

The ego is a construct of the chemical processes of your reptilian brain. It is associated with ‘fight or flight’; a survival instinct programmed into your brain from ‘reactions’ to your environment. Mostly, it becomes an automatic response to what you ‘believe’ is happening more that what is actually happening.

When your survival is threatened, the ego generates feelings of fear to prevent you from doing things that threaten your ongoing survival. Your subjective analysis is based on what you need to do in order to continue to survive. When the ego is more in command than your spirit, it looks to itself as the source of its survival and the ability to thrive at the expense of others.

Outlining and implementing self-serving goals like taking advantage of others, withholding the truth to your advantage and greed become the accepted states of thriving based on one’s perceptions of their own self-survival. At this point, the truth is colored to the advantage of the ego and it will do whatever it can to manifest its self-serving agenda; including prevarication, control, domination and manipulation of the facts and others to support its selfish position.

On the flip side of the ego is the ability to ‘get out of your own head’ and understand the greater picture. By utilizing the spiritual techniques of prayer, meditation, serviceand the allowance of fulfillment, you can learn to rise above the din of the perceived dualistic reality by learning to go within to validate what ‘appears’ to be true. There is a collective consciousness that has arisen from all of the years of human development and it has created ongoing vibrations of thoughts and feelings that are only mitigated by the beliefs of the observers.

We have the power to choose what we believe and to act on any and all beliefs. Our awareness and practice of Spirituality ‘colors’ our observations as to whether or not they beneficially or detrimentally affect the growth and expansion of ourselves AND others. Now the spirit within comes into play to define and ‘discern’ what is occurring and whether or not it ensures or threatens our collective ability to thrive together.

The true acid test is that if something occurs that is only beneficial to you and separates you from helping others, then it is selfishly motivated and is in the realm of emotional reactions to what you ‘perceive’ is occurring. However, it something occurs that is beneficial to you AND others and unites you with helping others, then it is universally motivated and is in the realm of spiritual proactions.

The spirit guides you to plan out what you will do and it becomes an automatic response to what you ‘know’ is happening more that what your perceive is happening. When your ability to thrive is forefront, your spirit generates feelings of faith to allow you to do things that make you strive toward thriving so you can help others AND yourself concurrently.

Your subjective analysis is based on what you need to do in order to help others AND yourself to thrive and not just survive. When the spirit is more in command than your ego, it looks to the Divine within as the source of its survival and the ability to thrive with the cooperation of others.

Outlining and implementing spiritual goals like helping others in Divine service, speaking the truth for everyone’s advantage and benevolence become the accepted states of thriving based on one’s perceptions of everyone’s ability to thrive. At this point, the truth is colored to the advantage of the spirit within and it will do whatever it can to manifest its all inclusive agenda of sharing Divine love with all; including honesty, freedom, surrender and allowance of the facts and others to support its caring and supportive position.

When we utilize our objective analysis of the physical observations and mental evaluations we are using logic and reason to establish an accurate perception of the truth. When we utilize our subjective analysis we color our beliefs of what we observe more with an intuitive proaction than with an emotional reaction, we can establish an accurate validation of the truth.

Emotions color what we perceive based on our selfish yearnings where intuitions color what we perceive based on the Divine desires of our heart. The desires to live in peace; understand one another; express joy; and share Divine love everlasting! Be that which has given you life and not that which takes it away. Be ye therefore PERFECT! ~Dean A. Banks, D.D.