Step reasoning and inductive stage reasoning are so much at odds with one another that few are able to come to terms with a principle when it is first made known to them. Understanding will continue to elude those who are unwilling or unable to undergo a course of instruction devised specifically for their enlightenment.
Inductive stage reasoning has gone from strength to strength for many centuries, and courses of instruction have proliferated accordingly. The high standard of such courses has made it possible for principles and associated sound practices to be impressed on ever-increasing numbers of students, even where most of them are inherently limited to step reasoning.
Despite this success, human affairs continue to be determined by superficial step reasoning, and imperilled by the apparently unstoppable forces of unenlightenment. Countless attempts have been made to bring about the necessary reforms but all have come to nought thus far. One reason is that all such attempts have fallen short of the standard which has long been the case with inductive teachings. Another reason is that two requirements have never been met.
The first requirement is to bring about a universal appreciation of the validity and scope of inductive stage reasoning, and the shortcomings and limitations of step reasoning.
The second is to raise the standard of all teaching to comply with the validity and completeness of inductive teachings.
I was born in Melbourne Australia in 1922.
During my school days we were taught about many notable advances of human reasoning and enlightenment down the ages, particularly those relating to Nature and her ways. We were also taught about the ongoing opposition to such teachings by the unenlightened, however well-educated they may have been in other respects.
I was left with the impression that this state of affairs was a thing of the past, and that well-educated people everywhere had learnt the lessons of history and become fully committed to the furtherance of enlightenment.
I then went on to complete a course in the field of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Melbourne. During that time it became apparent that several forms of advanced reasoning were called for in the ongoing development of such a field. These include: the development of sound practices with the backing of known principles, the development of sound practices without the backing of any known principle, inventive reasoning and the successful development of new inventions.
Yet despite all these advances, I have long been exposed to the same forces of unenlightenment in my own well-educated circles.
These considerations have led me to the conclusions set out in this book.