📌 Cause-Effect Reasoning
Here is the cause-effect reasoning applied in sentence analysis:
✅ First step, don't focus on universality. Consider everything as particular first. This prevents excessive fixation on measurement.
Premises
Order of premises composition is independent
🧿 The cat is an animal.
🧿 The animal is a duck.
🧿 Those living breathe.
🧿 Animals breathe.
Set
We put them into a set system, ensuring which is the parent and which are the members.
Sometimes things are vaguely set as members or parents, but at least we know the direction of the reasoning, determining the "members" and "parents."
🧿 Animal = {Cat, Duck, ...}
🧿 Living = {Breathing, ...}
🧿 Breathing = {Animal, ...}
📌 Create the Flowchart
💈 Living > {Breathing, ...} > Breathing > {Animal, ...} > Animal > {Cat, Duck, ...}
CASE STUDY
🧿 A = B (Immobile is a Rock)
🧿 C = A (The cat is Immobile)
👉 C = B (The cat is a Rock)
🧿 A = B (Breathing - Human)
🧿 C = A (Cat - Breathing)
👉 C = B (The cat is Human)
📌 Create sets
〰 Immobile = {Rock, Cat}
〰 Breathing = {Human, Cat, ...}
📌 Create the flowchart
💈 Immobile > {rock, cat}
💈 Breathing > {human, cat}
Conclusion:
🧩 The cat is a rock? Cats and rocks are different members, not the same, so "cat = rock" ❌
🧩 The cat is human? Cats and humans are different members, not the same, so "cat = human" ❌
THEREFORE ...
1⃣ Create set format (find parent and members)
2⃣ Create a flowchart (for easier reading)
3⃣ Draw conclusions according to the mapped sets or flowcharts
Feel free to try other premises and analyze the CONCLUSIONS
✅ Premises are not limited to two sentences. It could be 3, 5, or dozens of sentences (involving programming).
✅ This is just a simple stage. Let's go step by step until the modular stage.
CONCLUSION
📌 Flowchart
💈 Living > {Breathing, ...} > Breathing > {Animal, ...} > Animal > {Cat, Duck, ...}
🧩 CONCLUSION
- 〰 In the form of dialectics like this, that ... "cats and ducks live because they breathe, and cats, ducks, and animals live because they all breathe"
📌 Flowchart
💈 Immobile > {rock, cat}
Breathing > {human, cat}
In conclusion ...
🧩 CONCLUSION
- 〰 The cat is a rock? Cats and rocks are different members, not the same, so "cat = rock" ❌
- 〰 The cat is human? Cats and humans are different members, not the same, so "cat = human" ❌
- 〰 The cat breathes, but it's not immobile, not human, and not a rock.
🔰 With premise mapping like this, once mapped, it's difficult to reverse the overlapping without being noticed.
SYNCHRONIZING RELIGION & CAUSE-EFFECT REASONING
After fundamentally understanding the structure of cause-effect reasoning, how do we connect it to the Scripture❓
Simple, just find out which is the parent and which is the member according to the Scripture. In this way, we can make corrections, additions while maintaining consistency.
