Deduction as an effective analytical method

It has been a while since I have produced any public writings, and so my re-introduction into the global scene will start with the underlying premise of this blog: that the effectiveness of deduction in logical principle is sound enough to make informed choices.

What is deduction? Deduction is short for "deductive reasoning", to which Wikipedia says is "reasoning [that] involves using given true premises to reach a conclusion that is also true... If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, this procedure ensures an accurate conclusion." In my own words, deduction is the process by which we, as capable thinkers, can learn about truth without the requirement of scientific reasoning.

Easy examples:
I once touched a red stove to find that it was extremely hot.
When I see a red glowing stick in a fireplace, I deduce that it also will be extremely hot.

When I drop a rock, a water balloon, and/or a plate out of my window, they all fall to the ground.
I deduce that if I were to jump out of the window, I too would fall to the ground.

More provocative examples:
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen/poison for which there is no safe limit to ingest.
Vaccines include formaldehyde.
Injecting a vaccine into my body will cause it to be poisoned with a carcinogen and therefore could potentially threaten my life.

Nerves conduct information from the brain to the body and from the body to the brain.
Nerves can be subject to interference as a physical structure in the body.
A naturally optimally functioning brain and body would have no interference to the nerves.

I will also say this: many times (but not all), deductive reasoning is not effective enough alone. When performing operations, activities or holding thoughts that are beyond completely understood principles, we must use induction to still act in the face of doubt. Induction would be effective with cooking, for example. Just because ice cream tastes good, doesn't mean it is good for you, or even that it will be good with everything. (I tend not to bring up this example around major baconophiles.)

Here's the point: I often refer to society as "science-drunk". We, as a culture, have gulped from the Kool-Aid that says if there is no "science" (a.k.a. randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, peer-reviewed research), then there is no way to know for certain if something will be effective. And I want to call bullshit. If we at least attempt to balance our body of knowledge with deductive and inductive reasoning, we will be able to move quicker into decision making that can affect masses of people without conducting piles and eons of research before we make action.

Anyone who thinks otherwise would be advised to volunteer for the randomized controlled trial for the effectiveness of parachutes to prove their point.
(thanks Dr. Chris Kent)