I. INTRODUCTION
A challenge of colonization and decolonization of the human mind is the subject matter which has severally been addressed by different authors. They include: Kwasi Wiredu, Gustavo Gutierez, Enrique Dussel, Paul Freire, Frans Fanon, Chinweizu Ibekwe, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, and John Hick, just to name a few.
Kwasi Wiredu has authored “Toward Decolonizing African Philosophy and Religion” which has been published at the University of Florida by the “African Studies Quarterly,” Volume 1, Issue 4, on pages 17–46, in 1998. Gustavo Gutierez has authored “A Theology of Liberation” which has been published at London by the SCM Press in 1971. Enrique Dussel has authored “Philosophy of Liberation” which has been published at New York by Orbis Books in 1985. Paul Freire has authored “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” which has been published at New York by Continuum Press in 2004.
Frans Fanon has authored “Black Skin, White Masks” which has been published at New York by Grove Press in 1967. Chinweizu Ibekwe has authored “Decolonising the African Mind” which has been published at Lagos by Pero Publishers in 1987. Ngugi wa Thiong’o has authored “Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature” which has been published at Nairobi by Heinemann Kenya in 1986. And John Hick has edited a book written by seven European theologians entitled “The Myth of God Incarnate” which has been published at London by SCM Press in 1977.
In the eyes of these authors, it is the case that, the most visible forms of political colonialism have for the most part disappeared from the planet by the end of the millennium. Also, in their eyes, it is also the case that, several of its consequences remain in the colonies, not at a territorial level, but at the level of the human mind.
Accordingly, recent criticism of colonialism, has shifted its focus to its more subtle and lasting manifestations. Prominent among these are the varieties of what came to be known as the ‘colonization of the mind’. This is one of the forms of ‘epistemic violence’ that it is certainly the task of philosophers to contribute to identify and struggle against.
Key ‘postcolonial’ thinkers have undertaken not only to analyze this phenomenon, but also to devise strategies for effectively combating and hopefully eradicating colonialism’s most damaging aspect, namely, the taking possession and control of its victims’ minds. They include Paul Freire, Frans Fanon, Chinweizu Ibekwe, and Ngugi wa Thiong’o.
Generally, these thinkers agree to one point: that, ‘colonization of the mind’ is a phenomenon that manifests the following six characteristics : there is an intervention of an external source (the colonizer) in the mental sphere of a subject or group of subjects (the colonized); this intervention affects central aspects of the mind’s structure, mode of operation, and contents; its effects are long-lasting and not easily removable; there is a marked asymmetry of power between the parties involved; the parties can be aware or unaware of their role of colonizer or colonized; and both can participate in the process voluntarily or involuntarily.
These characteristics are shared by a variety of processes of mind colonization, regardless of whether they occur in socio-political situations that are literally categorized as ‘colonial’. Therefore, ‘colonization of the mind’ may take place through the transmission of mental habits and contents by means of social systems other than the colonial structure as we know it from world history.
For example, it may take place through the family, traditions, cultural practices, religion, science, language, fashion, ideology, political regimentation, the media, education, etc.
Consider religion and witchcraft as examples. Superstitious ideas, many of them rooted in religious doctrines that support the alleged reality of miracles and magical events, continue to thwart social and economic progress throughout the African continent.
These beliefs in superstition and witchcraft which are based on fear, magical thinking and inadequate education, are regularly exploited by unscrupulous individuals in positions of influence. This includes a religious superior who presides over consecration ceremony that allegedly brings about transubstantiation in the "bread and wine."
Specifically, these beliefs have been, and continue to be, used to oppress women, abuse children, support racism and xenophobia, justify torture, murder and genocide, and to exploit the poor, the weak and the aged. These unfounded beliefs are being used as a tool to incite hatred and cause division and conflicts in families and communities across the world.
For example, in Angola, Malawi, Nigeria, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, those accused of witchcraft have been murdered, tortured or banished by their communities.
Thus, we have every reason to fight against witchcraft-laden worldviews and their bad consequences on humanity. Witchcraft practices are mind-bending, mind-paralyzing and mind-polluting. They are tools maliciously used to move people from enlightenment era to endarkenment era.
However, we cannot fight against witchcraft-laden worldviews and at the same time promote the doctrine of “transubstantiation” as taught by various Christian denominations. Witchcraft related magic, such as turning a human being into a beast such as a dog (lycanthropy), and religious miracles, such as turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) are indistinguishable.
Both transubstantiation and lycanthropy are events lacking rational explanation in terms of the known natural laws. However, the former is condoned by religious superiors while arbitrarily condemning the latter. This is to say that, with respect to this example, both witchcraft and religious practices are modes of mind colonization.
Thus, my purpose in this study, is to invite first-rate philosophers, qua philosophers, to contribute to the “decolonization” project, as far as the mind-polluting effect of the the term “spirit,” as used in religion, witchcraft, and philosophy, is concerned. I suggest that it is doing much harm to the human mind.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
In philosophy, the term “SPIRIT” is often taken as the opposite, or rather a correlative, of “MATTER.” Both matter and spirit are called “SUBSTANCES.” These terms have specific meanings which have to be unpacked in order to bring to the fore the nature of the problem at hand.
It is said that, a SUBSTANCE is an entity, or a thing, that does not depend on another entity for its continued existence, meaning that it has an ontological independence. It is an individual material or spiritual entity that bears accidental and essential properties, where the latter grounds its sameness through change in properties. Thus, everything that exists and sustains its attributes must be a substance.
Thus, something can change in length from being 1 meter long to being 2 meters long, say by growing. Obviously, the property of ‘being 1 meter long’ does not persist through this change. Similarly, a thinker can think a series of thoughts, but the thinker persists, while the thoughts do not.
It is said that, MATTER is any "corporeal substance" whose "nature" entails "extension in length, breadth, and thickness," and so it has a volume. A corporeal substance is also called matter.
Generally, MATTER is said to be any physical substance that has mass, volume, and is ultimately convertible to energy, the latter being computed as the product of mass and the squared speed of light.
According to physics, which is a study that deals with the properties and phenomena of inanimate matter as affected by forces,matter has properties.
In principle, there are at least eight essential properties of matter, namely: mass, impenetrability, extension, figure, divisibility, indestructability, inertial, and attaction. These are called essential properties, because no particle of matter can be deprived of them, or exist without them.
Mass is a measure of the quantity of matter in an object, measured in terms of the number of molecules; or atoms; or the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, in an atom.
Impenetrability refers to the property by which one body excludes another from the place it wholly occupies. This is to say that, if two entities are impenetrable relative to each other, they cannot be in the same place at the same time.
So, impenetrability denies the possibility of material co-location, negates the possibility of material coincidence, and rejects the possibility of material co-occupancy . It maintains that, multiple objects can wholly occupy the same place at the same time.
Thus, impenetrability is the property by which a material object wholly occupies a certain space, in such a way that where it is located, no any other material body can be located without displacing it. Thus, we say that, two bodies of the same kind, or two portions of matter, cannot wholly occupy the same space at the same time.
Extension is a property that refers to the quantity of space in which the bodies attributes exist. It refers to the dimensions of a material object, which are expressed through terms such as length, breadth, depth, width, height, and thickness. Bulk and size are its synonyms.
Thus, every body, or portion of matter, must have size, bulk, or extension, which is measured by the portion of space which it occupies. Length is the measure of a body from end to end. Breadth or width is the measure of a body from side to side. Height is the measure of a body from the bottom to top. Depth is the measure of a body from the top to bottom. Thus, we speak of the depth of a well, and the height of a house.
Said differently, an object is said to be spatially extended if it occupies or is located at a non-point-sized region of space. According to this view, materiality consists in being ‘spread out’ or distributed across space, and not merely occupying or being located at a region of space per se. Thus, volume is defined as the amount of space occupied by a material object.
Figure is the form or shape of a body. Two circles or two balls may be of the same shape or figure, while they differ in extension. The limits of extension constitute figure.
For this reason, every "material substance" has both "matter" and "form." A very crude definition of matter is that, it is the ‘stuff’ out of which a thing is made, whereas form signifies the organisation that the matter takes.
A common example that can be used for explaining the difference between matter and form is that of a statue. Consider a marble statue. The marble is the matter of the statue whereas the shape signifies the form of the statue. The marble is the ‘stuff’ out of which the statue is made whereas the shape signifies the form that the artist decided to give to the statue.
It follows from this initial account that matter is a principle of potency in a thing; since if the matter is that which stands to be structured in a certain way, matter can be potentially an indefinite number of forms. Form on the other hand is not potentially one thing or another; form as form is the kind of thing that it is and no other.
Divisibility of matter refers to a property by virtue of which matter is susceptible to division. Through cutting, pounding, grinding, or other similar methods, a body can be divided into halves, quarters, and so on. And these halves and quarters may be again divided in the same manner continually to smallest particles, to which comparatively, a grain of sand appears as large as a maintain does to us.
Since they are smaller than a grain of sand, they are too small to be visible to our eyes. In other words, the divisibility of matter is limited only by the extent of our powers. That is, matter is indefinitely divisible.
Indestructibility of matter refers to a property by virtue of which matter cannot be destroyed. This means that, matter may be indefinitely divided, altered in its form, changed in accidental properties such as colour, but it must still continue to exist in some form despite all its changes of external appearance.
Inertia means resistance of a body to a change of state. It is the resistance which inactive matter makes to a change of state, whether of motion or rest. A body at rest cannot put itself in motion, nor can a body in motion stop itself. Thus, when a body is put in motion, will continue to move for ever, unless it is stopped by an external force.
Attraction, is the tendency of different bodies or portions of matter, to approach each other. That is, every portion of matter is attracted by every other portion of matter, and this attraction is the strongest in the largest portions.
Said differently, the attraction of between two masses of matter is directly proportional to the product of the quantity of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. So, the greater the quantity and the less the distance, the stronger will be their attraction.
There are two main types of attraction between material objects: gravitational and cohesive attraction. Gravitational attraction (aka gravity) is the attraction which causes bodies at a distance to approach each other. And cohesive attraction is the attraction which binds together the particles of the same body.
Apart from these essential properties of matter, there accidental properties also. These are properties that exist in different bodies, but they do not necessarily exist in all of the bodies. Thus, porosity, compressibility, expansibility, elasticity, brittleness, malleability, ductility, tenacity, colour, weight are accidental properties.
Porosity of a body is the ratio of total pore volume as found inside a body to the total volume of that body as viewed externally. It is a quantification of the amount of space available to fluid within a specific body. Being simply a fraction of total volume, porosity can range between 0 and 1.
The porosity of bodies leads to other properties such as density. Density refers to the degree of closeness and compactness of the particles of a body. Mathematically density is defined as mass per unit volume. Thus, a denser body has small and few pores, as compared to a less dense body, which as bigger and many pores.
Compressibility refers to the possibility of a body being compressed into smaller limits of extension than it naturally has. All substances are susceptible to compression if a sufficient force is applied.
Expansibility refers to possibility of being increased in extension, and it is the reverse of compressibility. Heat expands most substances, and cold contracts or compresses them. Elasticity is the property which causes a body to resume its shape after being compressed or expanded.
Mobility refers to the possibility of a body being moved from one place to another. All bodies, however large or heavy, may be moved, provided a sufficient force is applied. Malleability is the capability of being drawn under the hammer, or rolling press. This property belongs to some of the metals, as gold, silver, iron, and copper, but not all.
Brittleness is the property which renders substances easily broken, or separated into irregular fragments. This property belongs chiefly to hard bodies. It is the opposite of malleability. Ductility is the property which renders a substance susceptible of being drawn into wire. Platinumis the most ductile of all metals. Tenacity implies agreat degree of adhesion among the particles of bodies. Iron is the very tenacious metal.
On the other hand, in physics we say that, matter has three states, namely, gas, liquid and solids.
A gas has no fixed volume or shape, and is easily compressed or expanded. Examples of gas are air, neon, acetylene. A liquid has a fixed volume, its shape is the shape of container, and it is not easily compressed. Examples of liquids are water, gasoline, and blood. A solid has fixed volume and shape, and it is not easily compressed. Examples of solids are salt, steel, and cotton.
From this discussion on these physical properties of matter, the following argument follows logically:
(a) Lacking extension entails lacking location;
(b) Lacking location entails lacking existence;
(c) Thus, nothing exists that is non-extended.
This argument formed the basis of debunking superstitious and witchcraft related worldviews in Europe around the 17th century. Nevertheless, this argument is not supported by everyone.
For example, the advocates of the existence of spiritual substances accept its validity but deny its soundness.
They claim that, apart from material substances which possess gravity, inertia and impenetrability, there are immaterial substances which do not possess these properties.
They argue that, like bodies, spirits are extended. For them, while extended material substance is impenetrable palpable, divisible, and mortal, an extended spiritual substance is penetrable impalpable, indivisible and immortal.
Being penetrable, they claim, the spirit, such as the mind, can thereby be co-located with the body, and this, allows us to understand how mind and body could interact. It also allows us, they argue, to understand how a spirit, such as a ghost or an angel, can pass through a wall.
In order to defend their position, they formulate and suggest some thought experiments:
If we weigh a man who weighs exactly one hundred and seventy-five pounds; kill him with a spark of electricity; and then weigh his corpse again; he shall weigh just one hundred and seventy five pounds as before. The reason they give is that, the soul that has escaped from the body at the moment of death is an immaterial substance, therefore independent of gravitational force, and consequently without weight.
Again, supporters of immaterial substances claim that, if we weigh a metallic ball very carefully, and then heat it to a white hot state and then weigh it again, it will be found to have gained nothing despite the large amount of heat which it contains. They argue that, the reason is that, heat is an immaterial substance, and thus not subject to gravitational force and other laws and conditions of matter.
Proponents of immaterial substances as parallel existents, claim that material substances are no obstacle to the movements of immaterial substances. They give some examples in this regard. For example, they say, magnetism will act as freely through glass on its responsive object as if it were not there. Sound moves, they say, through still air and solid steel wire where in both cases the substantial agents are invisible to human sight.
Similarly, they say, the soul leaves the body at death unobserved by human eye; just as God could unobserved enter and leave a securely closed room (John xx. 19, 26).
According to them, our material organs of vision are adapted only to a material world, and only to a very limited part of it.
This claim means that, there is a vast world beyond our unaided vision, requiring only the telescope to reveal it; and that, there is another world of indescribably numerous, varied and beautiful animated beings around us, but we need a microscope to reveal them. Here, they say, with our material visual organs we see only in part, a very small part at best, and that very imperfectly.
Thus, they conclude that, material substances are not absolutely impenetrable, as taught in the current theories of physics.
Accordingly, it is said that, a SPIRIT is "a rational simple substance whose presence in a region of space does not offer any resistance to the simultaneous presence of an elementary material substance within that region."
In a sense, this is to say that, a spirit is an immaterial center of consciousness, which is capable of intelligent and free actions. Briefly defined, intelligence is “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” (Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 2006).
In other words, intelligence is the ability of an entity to use memory, knowledge, experience, understanding, reasoning, imagination and judgement in order to solve problems and adapt to new situations (All Words Dictionary, 2006).
Others say that, intelligence is the ability of an entity to engage in calculating, reasoning, perceiving relationships and analogies, learning quickly, storing and retrieving information, using language fluently, classifying, generalizing, and adjusting to new situations (Columbia Encyclopaedia, 6th edition, 2006).
The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1966), narrowly defines a “SPIRIT” as “the part of a human being that is incorporeal and invisible, and is characterized by intelligence, personality, self-consciousness, and will; the mind.”
But generally speaking, the class of spiritual substances seems to include human soul, angels, gods, demons, ghosts, and saints. These entities are also referred to as minds.
So, our our minds are substances. They can exist independently, meaning that, they are not dependent on something else in order to exist. In particular, this means that, our minds are not dependent on our bodies, perhaps especially our brains, in order to exist at all. Many people believe, and many religions teach, that our minds can exist after death, that is, after the death of our bodies.
One common interpretation of this claim is that our minds are separate substances from our bodies. If the mind is a substance, then the end of our bodies’ existence is not the end of our minds’ existence. The doctrine which states that, the mind and the body are separate substances is known as substance dualism. This doctrine claims that there are two fundamental kinds of substance, namely, mental and physical substances.
There are two additional doctrines apart from the doctrine of substance dualism. These are idealism and materialism. According to the doctrine of idealism, spirit is the only kind of substances, and so whatever exists is either a spirit or depends on a spirit.
On the other hand, according to materialism, matter is the only kind of substances that exist. According to materialism, everything that exists, including whatever is mental, is either a material thing or it is dependent on some material thing to exist. An updated version of materialism is physicalism, which replaces ‘matter’ with ‘physical substance’ because recent physics has analysed matter as interchangeable with energy in various forms.
In general, at the heart of many religious, philosophical and witchcraft related narratives is the view that an exhaustive inventory of reality consists of both material and immaterial entities, and that these two domains interact in some way. There is, however, surprisingly little discussion on the precise nature and relationship between the material and the immaterial and its bearing on daily human life.
In light of this puzzle, and given the differences we know between physical and metaphysical knowledge, the following questions emerge automatically:
(a) Without having recourse to scriptural mystical stories and other similar narratives in African Traditional Religions (ATR), is it the case that spirits, in the sense defined above, actually do exist?
(b) Without having recourse to scriptural mystical stories and other similar narratives in African Traditional Religions (ATR), is it possible that spirits, in the sense defined above, can possibly exist?
(c) Can two things, one material and the other spiritual in composition, completely occupy exactly the same space or exactly the same volume for exactly the same period of time?
(d) Although it is certain that a human soul is a simple substance, is it certain that it is a "spirit " in the sense defined above?
(e) Supposing that the human soul were a spirit in the sense defined above,at what point within the place occupied by a person's body is his soul located?
(f) The phenomena of inorganic matter can be explained satisfactorily in terms of extension, figure, motion, impenetrability, and various natural forces expressible in mathematical terms and subject to the laws of mechanics. But there are also living organisms in the world. These organisms have vitality of some sort. Thus, these vital organisms cannot be regarded as subject to the laws of motion in general or impact in particular. They seem to govern themselves and to organize non-living matter by their own inner activity. There must be substances of a special kind behind vitality. Are the substances of a special kind behind vitality in living things spirits, in the sense defined above?
(g) The world of inter-related material substances is called a MATERIAL WORLD,while, the world of inter-related spiritual substances is called a SPIRITUAL WORLD. The human soul, angels, gods, demons, ghosts, and saints, are said to occupy the SPIRITUAL WORLD; while, all embodied objects are said to occupy the MATERIAL WORLD. Is there any causal relationships between these two worlds? If yes, how does one explain it?
(h) Are the MATERIAL WORLD, on one hand, and the SPIRITUAL WORLD, on the other hand, parallel universes such that, each universe has its own spacio-temporal, four-dimensional, frame of reference?
(i) And, the human soul, angels, gods and God, demons, ghosts, and saints, are said to occupy a SPIRITUAL WORLD which runs in parallel with the MATERIAL WORLD. Is the former world a FACT of FICTION?
III. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Left unchallenged, the harmful, dark and destructive effects of superstitious and witchcraft laden beliefs have become common and recurrent problems in the third world countries, especially in Africa.
Until now, there have not been any major organized efforts to critically analyse, debate and dispel superstitions, myths, misconceptions and other deeply harmful beliefs which are premised on the alleged existence of a spiritual world running in parallel with the physical world.
Against this backdrop, the proponents of mind decolonization are called upon to uncompromisingly challenge these harmful ideas by offering a humane and rational alternative, drawing upon humanistic ethics and an appreciation for scientific methods of investigation.
It is along these lines of thinking, that this study seeks to bring clarity to the relationship that is said by witches, theologians and philosophers, to exist between matter and spirit. I suspect that, as we stand today, the relationships that is said to exist between matter and spirit is more superstitious than scientific. It is not INTELLECTUALLY GROUNDED yet.
So, if we are to generate and transmit to future generations WORLDVIEWS WHICH ARE INTELLECTUALLY GROUNDED, we have to review our understanding of the relationship that is said to exist between the “spiritual world,” on one hand, and the “material world,” on the other hand. This way, it is hoped, shall we be able to eliminate the superstitious and witchcraft-laden worldviews of our day.
IV. RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODS
Bearing in mind that, experiment, surveys, archival analysis, histories and case studies are the five common research strategies, each having its own strengths and weaknesses, we propose to adopt the case-study strategy in this research. The case-study strategy can have one or more cases, where it is called a multiple-case-study strategy if it addresses many cases.
The nature and scope of the present study suggests a divide-and-conquer strategy. So, we propose to use a MULTIPLE-CASE-STUDY strategy, entailing ten cases, namely:
In light of the strategy chosen, it follows that, for this strategy to bring the desired results, several methods should be employed in the investigation of the problem stated for this research. These are as follows:
(1) Expository Analysis
We shall begin by separately looking at the fundamental doctrinal claims of idealism, materialism and dualism. In this method we shall seek to give a comprehensive exposition of their conceptions of what matter and spirits are and how they are related.
(2) Comparative Analysis
After looking at the claims of each doctrine separately, we shall look at their similarities and differences with a view of determining their convergent and divergent points.
(3) Critical Appraisal
A critical evaluation of the three doctrinal views on the matter-spirit problem will be given. In seeking to give this critical evaluation two norms will be employed. The first is the adequacy in expressing the objectivity of the claims inherent in each doctrine. And the second is the adequacy in meeting the philosophical requirements of consistency and coherence. As a rule, critical appraisal will be preserved until a thorough elaboration of the three doctrinal positions has been fully made.
(4) Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning is the process of proving or demonstrating that if certain statements are accepted as true, then other statements can be shown to follow. Deductive reasoning can be used to prove that these new facts are true. Consider the following example of deductive reasoning: All humans are mortal (major premise); Socrates is human (minor premise); Socrates is mortal (conclusion).
Applying the deduction method on the general rule “all humans are mortal” (major premise) in the specific situation “Socrates is human” (minor premise), the conclusion can be drawn that “Socrates is mortal”. Notice that deductive reasoning provides no new information, it only rearranges information that is already known into a new statements or truths. So deductive reasoning proceeds as follows: “if this is true, than this is also true”. Deductive reasoning tests typically contain syllogisms as questions.
(5) Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is the synthetic process of observing data, recognizing patterns, and making generalizations from your observations. When you generalize and extrapolate the information, you don’t know for sure if this trend will continue, but you assume it will. You therefore don’t know for sure that a conclusion based on inductive reasoning will be 100% true. Consider the famous hypothesis is: ‘all swans are white.’
This conclusion was taken from a large amount of observations without observing any black swan and consequently logically assuming that black swans don’t exist. That is what inductive reasoning is all about. It entails looking at the given data, making a generalization, and extrapolating the pattern. Inductive reasoning is, therefore, a risky form of logical reasoning since the conclusion can as easily be incorrect when, looking at the swans example, a black swan is spotted.
(6) Abductive reasoning
Abductive is a middle ground between induction and deduction. It is somewhat similar to inductive reasoning. Conclusions drawn in abductive reasoning are based on probabilities. In abductive reasoning it is presumed that the most plausible conclusion is also the correct one.
Consider the following example: The jar is filled with yellow marbles (major premise); Bob has a yellow marble in his hand (minor premise); The yellow marble in Bob’s hand was taken out of the jar (conclusion).
By abductive reasoning, the possibility that Bob took the yellow marble from the jar is reasonable, however it is purely based on the speculation. The yellow marble could have been given to Bob by anyone, or Bob could have bought a yellow marble at a store. Therefore, abducing that Bob took the yellow marble, from the observation of “the yellow marble filled jar” can lead to a false conclusion.
Generally, abductive reasoning and the other two forms of logical inference (induction and deduction) are complementary operations of the human mind. Their differences can be stated as follows: Deduction infers a result (conclusion) that is certain; induction produces a rule (conclusion) that is valid until a contrary instance is found; abduction produces a case (conclusion) that is always uncertain, that is, merely plausible. The following different arrangements of the three elements of the same set, the elements being 'rule,' 'case' and 'result,' clarifies these differences:
For deductive inference we have the following arrangement of the three elements: All the beans from this bag are white (Rule); These beans are from this bag (case); These beans are white (result). Here, the sequence is: rule, case, and then result.
For inductive inference we have the following arrangement of the three elements: These beans are from this bag (case); These beans are white (Result); All the beans from this bag are white (rule). Here, the sequence is: case, result, and then rule.
And for an abductive inference we have the following arrangement of the three elements: All the beans from this bag are white (rule); These beans are white (result); These beans are from this bag (case). Here, the sequence is: rule, result, and then case.
Thus, in order for our process of inquiry to become methodologically complete, abduction (whose job is to form hypotheses for explaining an observation) shall be followed by both deduction (for logically deriving the consequences of the hypothesis) and induction (for empirically testing the predicted consequences of the hypothesis).
V. CALL FOR ACTION
This is a research proposal for every philosopher, qua philosopher. Thus, any philosopher who knows an answer to any of the above research questions, and is willing to share his/her knowledge, is kindly requested to post against this thread. You are all welcome!
A challenge of colonization and decolonization of the human mind is the subject matter which has severally been addressed by different authors. They include: Kwasi Wiredu, Gustavo Gutierez, Enrique Dussel, Paul Freire, Frans Fanon, Chinweizu Ibekwe, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, and John Hick, just to name a few.
Kwasi Wiredu has authored “Toward Decolonizing African Philosophy and Religion” which has been published at the University of Florida by the “African Studies Quarterly,” Volume 1, Issue 4, on pages 17–46, in 1998. Gustavo Gutierez has authored “A Theology of Liberation” which has been published at London by the SCM Press in 1971. Enrique Dussel has authored “Philosophy of Liberation” which has been published at New York by Orbis Books in 1985. Paul Freire has authored “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” which has been published at New York by Continuum Press in 2004.
Frans Fanon has authored “Black Skin, White Masks” which has been published at New York by Grove Press in 1967. Chinweizu Ibekwe has authored “Decolonising the African Mind” which has been published at Lagos by Pero Publishers in 1987. Ngugi wa Thiong’o has authored “Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature” which has been published at Nairobi by Heinemann Kenya in 1986. And John Hick has edited a book written by seven European theologians entitled “The Myth of God Incarnate” which has been published at London by SCM Press in 1977.
In the eyes of these authors, it is the case that, the most visible forms of political colonialism have for the most part disappeared from the planet by the end of the millennium. Also, in their eyes, it is also the case that, several of its consequences remain in the colonies, not at a territorial level, but at the level of the human mind.
Accordingly, recent criticism of colonialism, has shifted its focus to its more subtle and lasting manifestations. Prominent among these are the varieties of what came to be known as the ‘colonization of the mind’. This is one of the forms of ‘epistemic violence’ that it is certainly the task of philosophers to contribute to identify and struggle against.
Key ‘postcolonial’ thinkers have undertaken not only to analyze this phenomenon, but also to devise strategies for effectively combating and hopefully eradicating colonialism’s most damaging aspect, namely, the taking possession and control of its victims’ minds. They include Paul Freire, Frans Fanon, Chinweizu Ibekwe, and Ngugi wa Thiong’o.
Generally, these thinkers agree to one point: that, ‘colonization of the mind’ is a phenomenon that manifests the following six characteristics : there is an intervention of an external source (the colonizer) in the mental sphere of a subject or group of subjects (the colonized); this intervention affects central aspects of the mind’s structure, mode of operation, and contents; its effects are long-lasting and not easily removable; there is a marked asymmetry of power between the parties involved; the parties can be aware or unaware of their role of colonizer or colonized; and both can participate in the process voluntarily or involuntarily.
These characteristics are shared by a variety of processes of mind colonization, regardless of whether they occur in socio-political situations that are literally categorized as ‘colonial’. Therefore, ‘colonization of the mind’ may take place through the transmission of mental habits and contents by means of social systems other than the colonial structure as we know it from world history.
For example, it may take place through the family, traditions, cultural practices, religion, science, language, fashion, ideology, political regimentation, the media, education, etc.
Consider religion and witchcraft as examples. Superstitious ideas, many of them rooted in religious doctrines that support the alleged reality of miracles and magical events, continue to thwart social and economic progress throughout the African continent.
These beliefs in superstition and witchcraft which are based on fear, magical thinking and inadequate education, are regularly exploited by unscrupulous individuals in positions of influence. This includes a religious superior who presides over consecration ceremony that allegedly brings about transubstantiation in the "bread and wine."
Specifically, these beliefs have been, and continue to be, used to oppress women, abuse children, support racism and xenophobia, justify torture, murder and genocide, and to exploit the poor, the weak and the aged. These unfounded beliefs are being used as a tool to incite hatred and cause division and conflicts in families and communities across the world.
For example, in Angola, Malawi, Nigeria, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, those accused of witchcraft have been murdered, tortured or banished by their communities.
Thus, we have every reason to fight against witchcraft-laden worldviews and their bad consequences on humanity. Witchcraft practices are mind-bending, mind-paralyzing and mind-polluting. They are tools maliciously used to move people from enlightenment era to endarkenment era.
However, we cannot fight against witchcraft-laden worldviews and at the same time promote the doctrine of “transubstantiation” as taught by various Christian denominations. Witchcraft related magic, such as turning a human being into a beast such as a dog (lycanthropy), and religious miracles, such as turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) are indistinguishable.
Both transubstantiation and lycanthropy are events lacking rational explanation in terms of the known natural laws. However, the former is condoned by religious superiors while arbitrarily condemning the latter. This is to say that, with respect to this example, both witchcraft and religious practices are modes of mind colonization.
Thus, my purpose in this study, is to invite first-rate philosophers, qua philosophers, to contribute to the “decolonization” project, as far as the mind-polluting effect of the the term “spirit,” as used in religion, witchcraft, and philosophy, is concerned. I suggest that it is doing much harm to the human mind.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
In philosophy, the term “SPIRIT” is often taken as the opposite, or rather a correlative, of “MATTER.” Both matter and spirit are called “SUBSTANCES.” These terms have specific meanings which have to be unpacked in order to bring to the fore the nature of the problem at hand.
It is said that, a SUBSTANCE is an entity, or a thing, that does not depend on another entity for its continued existence, meaning that it has an ontological independence. It is an individual material or spiritual entity that bears accidental and essential properties, where the latter grounds its sameness through change in properties. Thus, everything that exists and sustains its attributes must be a substance.
Thus, something can change in length from being 1 meter long to being 2 meters long, say by growing. Obviously, the property of ‘being 1 meter long’ does not persist through this change. Similarly, a thinker can think a series of thoughts, but the thinker persists, while the thoughts do not.
It is said that, MATTER is any "corporeal substance" whose "nature" entails "extension in length, breadth, and thickness," and so it has a volume. A corporeal substance is also called matter.
Generally, MATTER is said to be any physical substance that has mass, volume, and is ultimately convertible to energy, the latter being computed as the product of mass and the squared speed of light.
According to physics, which is a study that deals with the properties and phenomena of inanimate matter as affected by forces,matter has properties.
In principle, there are at least eight essential properties of matter, namely: mass, impenetrability, extension, figure, divisibility, indestructability, inertial, and attaction. These are called essential properties, because no particle of matter can be deprived of them, or exist without them.
Mass is a measure of the quantity of matter in an object, measured in terms of the number of molecules; or atoms; or the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, in an atom.
Impenetrability refers to the property by which one body excludes another from the place it wholly occupies. This is to say that, if two entities are impenetrable relative to each other, they cannot be in the same place at the same time.
So, impenetrability denies the possibility of material co-location, negates the possibility of material coincidence, and rejects the possibility of material co-occupancy . It maintains that, multiple objects can wholly occupy the same place at the same time.
Thus, impenetrability is the property by which a material object wholly occupies a certain space, in such a way that where it is located, no any other material body can be located without displacing it. Thus, we say that, two bodies of the same kind, or two portions of matter, cannot wholly occupy the same space at the same time.
Extension is a property that refers to the quantity of space in which the bodies attributes exist. It refers to the dimensions of a material object, which are expressed through terms such as length, breadth, depth, width, height, and thickness. Bulk and size are its synonyms.
Thus, every body, or portion of matter, must have size, bulk, or extension, which is measured by the portion of space which it occupies. Length is the measure of a body from end to end. Breadth or width is the measure of a body from side to side. Height is the measure of a body from the bottom to top. Depth is the measure of a body from the top to bottom. Thus, we speak of the depth of a well, and the height of a house.
Said differently, an object is said to be spatially extended if it occupies or is located at a non-point-sized region of space. According to this view, materiality consists in being ‘spread out’ or distributed across space, and not merely occupying or being located at a region of space per se. Thus, volume is defined as the amount of space occupied by a material object.
Figure is the form or shape of a body. Two circles or two balls may be of the same shape or figure, while they differ in extension. The limits of extension constitute figure.
For this reason, every "material substance" has both "matter" and "form." A very crude definition of matter is that, it is the ‘stuff’ out of which a thing is made, whereas form signifies the organisation that the matter takes.
A common example that can be used for explaining the difference between matter and form is that of a statue. Consider a marble statue. The marble is the matter of the statue whereas the shape signifies the form of the statue. The marble is the ‘stuff’ out of which the statue is made whereas the shape signifies the form that the artist decided to give to the statue.
It follows from this initial account that matter is a principle of potency in a thing; since if the matter is that which stands to be structured in a certain way, matter can be potentially an indefinite number of forms. Form on the other hand is not potentially one thing or another; form as form is the kind of thing that it is and no other.
Divisibility of matter refers to a property by virtue of which matter is susceptible to division. Through cutting, pounding, grinding, or other similar methods, a body can be divided into halves, quarters, and so on. And these halves and quarters may be again divided in the same manner continually to smallest particles, to which comparatively, a grain of sand appears as large as a maintain does to us.
Since they are smaller than a grain of sand, they are too small to be visible to our eyes. In other words, the divisibility of matter is limited only by the extent of our powers. That is, matter is indefinitely divisible.
Indestructibility of matter refers to a property by virtue of which matter cannot be destroyed. This means that, matter may be indefinitely divided, altered in its form, changed in accidental properties such as colour, but it must still continue to exist in some form despite all its changes of external appearance.
Inertia means resistance of a body to a change of state. It is the resistance which inactive matter makes to a change of state, whether of motion or rest. A body at rest cannot put itself in motion, nor can a body in motion stop itself. Thus, when a body is put in motion, will continue to move for ever, unless it is stopped by an external force.
Attraction, is the tendency of different bodies or portions of matter, to approach each other. That is, every portion of matter is attracted by every other portion of matter, and this attraction is the strongest in the largest portions.
Said differently, the attraction of between two masses of matter is directly proportional to the product of the quantity of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. So, the greater the quantity and the less the distance, the stronger will be their attraction.
There are two main types of attraction between material objects: gravitational and cohesive attraction. Gravitational attraction (aka gravity) is the attraction which causes bodies at a distance to approach each other. And cohesive attraction is the attraction which binds together the particles of the same body.
Apart from these essential properties of matter, there accidental properties also. These are properties that exist in different bodies, but they do not necessarily exist in all of the bodies. Thus, porosity, compressibility, expansibility, elasticity, brittleness, malleability, ductility, tenacity, colour, weight are accidental properties.
Porosity of a body is the ratio of total pore volume as found inside a body to the total volume of that body as viewed externally. It is a quantification of the amount of space available to fluid within a specific body. Being simply a fraction of total volume, porosity can range between 0 and 1.
The porosity of bodies leads to other properties such as density. Density refers to the degree of closeness and compactness of the particles of a body. Mathematically density is defined as mass per unit volume. Thus, a denser body has small and few pores, as compared to a less dense body, which as bigger and many pores.
Compressibility refers to the possibility of a body being compressed into smaller limits of extension than it naturally has. All substances are susceptible to compression if a sufficient force is applied.
Expansibility refers to possibility of being increased in extension, and it is the reverse of compressibility. Heat expands most substances, and cold contracts or compresses them. Elasticity is the property which causes a body to resume its shape after being compressed or expanded.
Mobility refers to the possibility of a body being moved from one place to another. All bodies, however large or heavy, may be moved, provided a sufficient force is applied. Malleability is the capability of being drawn under the hammer, or rolling press. This property belongs to some of the metals, as gold, silver, iron, and copper, but not all.
Brittleness is the property which renders substances easily broken, or separated into irregular fragments. This property belongs chiefly to hard bodies. It is the opposite of malleability. Ductility is the property which renders a substance susceptible of being drawn into wire. Platinumis the most ductile of all metals. Tenacity implies agreat degree of adhesion among the particles of bodies. Iron is the very tenacious metal.
On the other hand, in physics we say that, matter has three states, namely, gas, liquid and solids.
A gas has no fixed volume or shape, and is easily compressed or expanded. Examples of gas are air, neon, acetylene. A liquid has a fixed volume, its shape is the shape of container, and it is not easily compressed. Examples of liquids are water, gasoline, and blood. A solid has fixed volume and shape, and it is not easily compressed. Examples of solids are salt, steel, and cotton.
From this discussion on these physical properties of matter, the following argument follows logically:
(a) Lacking extension entails lacking location;
(b) Lacking location entails lacking existence;
(c) Thus, nothing exists that is non-extended.
This argument formed the basis of debunking superstitious and witchcraft related worldviews in Europe around the 17th century. Nevertheless, this argument is not supported by everyone.
For example, the advocates of the existence of spiritual substances accept its validity but deny its soundness.
They claim that, apart from material substances which possess gravity, inertia and impenetrability, there are immaterial substances which do not possess these properties.
They argue that, like bodies, spirits are extended. For them, while extended material substance is impenetrable palpable, divisible, and mortal, an extended spiritual substance is penetrable impalpable, indivisible and immortal.
Being penetrable, they claim, the spirit, such as the mind, can thereby be co-located with the body, and this, allows us to understand how mind and body could interact. It also allows us, they argue, to understand how a spirit, such as a ghost or an angel, can pass through a wall.
In order to defend their position, they formulate and suggest some thought experiments:
If we weigh a man who weighs exactly one hundred and seventy-five pounds; kill him with a spark of electricity; and then weigh his corpse again; he shall weigh just one hundred and seventy five pounds as before. The reason they give is that, the soul that has escaped from the body at the moment of death is an immaterial substance, therefore independent of gravitational force, and consequently without weight.
Again, supporters of immaterial substances claim that, if we weigh a metallic ball very carefully, and then heat it to a white hot state and then weigh it again, it will be found to have gained nothing despite the large amount of heat which it contains. They argue that, the reason is that, heat is an immaterial substance, and thus not subject to gravitational force and other laws and conditions of matter.
Proponents of immaterial substances as parallel existents, claim that material substances are no obstacle to the movements of immaterial substances. They give some examples in this regard. For example, they say, magnetism will act as freely through glass on its responsive object as if it were not there. Sound moves, they say, through still air and solid steel wire where in both cases the substantial agents are invisible to human sight.
Similarly, they say, the soul leaves the body at death unobserved by human eye; just as God could unobserved enter and leave a securely closed room (John xx. 19, 26).
According to them, our material organs of vision are adapted only to a material world, and only to a very limited part of it.
This claim means that, there is a vast world beyond our unaided vision, requiring only the telescope to reveal it; and that, there is another world of indescribably numerous, varied and beautiful animated beings around us, but we need a microscope to reveal them. Here, they say, with our material visual organs we see only in part, a very small part at best, and that very imperfectly.
Thus, they conclude that, material substances are not absolutely impenetrable, as taught in the current theories of physics.
Accordingly, it is said that, a SPIRIT is "a rational simple substance whose presence in a region of space does not offer any resistance to the simultaneous presence of an elementary material substance within that region."
In a sense, this is to say that, a spirit is an immaterial center of consciousness, which is capable of intelligent and free actions. Briefly defined, intelligence is “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.” (Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 2006).
In other words, intelligence is the ability of an entity to use memory, knowledge, experience, understanding, reasoning, imagination and judgement in order to solve problems and adapt to new situations (All Words Dictionary, 2006).
Others say that, intelligence is the ability of an entity to engage in calculating, reasoning, perceiving relationships and analogies, learning quickly, storing and retrieving information, using language fluently, classifying, generalizing, and adjusting to new situations (Columbia Encyclopaedia, 6th edition, 2006).
The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1966), narrowly defines a “SPIRIT” as “the part of a human being that is incorporeal and invisible, and is characterized by intelligence, personality, self-consciousness, and will; the mind.”
But generally speaking, the class of spiritual substances seems to include human soul, angels, gods, demons, ghosts, and saints. These entities are also referred to as minds.
So, our our minds are substances. They can exist independently, meaning that, they are not dependent on something else in order to exist. In particular, this means that, our minds are not dependent on our bodies, perhaps especially our brains, in order to exist at all. Many people believe, and many religions teach, that our minds can exist after death, that is, after the death of our bodies.
One common interpretation of this claim is that our minds are separate substances from our bodies. If the mind is a substance, then the end of our bodies’ existence is not the end of our minds’ existence. The doctrine which states that, the mind and the body are separate substances is known as substance dualism. This doctrine claims that there are two fundamental kinds of substance, namely, mental and physical substances.
There are two additional doctrines apart from the doctrine of substance dualism. These are idealism and materialism. According to the doctrine of idealism, spirit is the only kind of substances, and so whatever exists is either a spirit or depends on a spirit.
On the other hand, according to materialism, matter is the only kind of substances that exist. According to materialism, everything that exists, including whatever is mental, is either a material thing or it is dependent on some material thing to exist. An updated version of materialism is physicalism, which replaces ‘matter’ with ‘physical substance’ because recent physics has analysed matter as interchangeable with energy in various forms.
In general, at the heart of many religious, philosophical and witchcraft related narratives is the view that an exhaustive inventory of reality consists of both material and immaterial entities, and that these two domains interact in some way. There is, however, surprisingly little discussion on the precise nature and relationship between the material and the immaterial and its bearing on daily human life.
In light of this puzzle, and given the differences we know between physical and metaphysical knowledge, the following questions emerge automatically:
(a) Without having recourse to scriptural mystical stories and other similar narratives in African Traditional Religions (ATR), is it the case that spirits, in the sense defined above, actually do exist?
(b) Without having recourse to scriptural mystical stories and other similar narratives in African Traditional Religions (ATR), is it possible that spirits, in the sense defined above, can possibly exist?
(c) Can two things, one material and the other spiritual in composition, completely occupy exactly the same space or exactly the same volume for exactly the same period of time?
(d) Although it is certain that a human soul is a simple substance, is it certain that it is a "spirit " in the sense defined above?
(e) Supposing that the human soul were a spirit in the sense defined above,at what point within the place occupied by a person's body is his soul located?
(f) The phenomena of inorganic matter can be explained satisfactorily in terms of extension, figure, motion, impenetrability, and various natural forces expressible in mathematical terms and subject to the laws of mechanics. But there are also living organisms in the world. These organisms have vitality of some sort. Thus, these vital organisms cannot be regarded as subject to the laws of motion in general or impact in particular. They seem to govern themselves and to organize non-living matter by their own inner activity. There must be substances of a special kind behind vitality. Are the substances of a special kind behind vitality in living things spirits, in the sense defined above?
(g) The world of inter-related material substances is called a MATERIAL WORLD,while, the world of inter-related spiritual substances is called a SPIRITUAL WORLD. The human soul, angels, gods, demons, ghosts, and saints, are said to occupy the SPIRITUAL WORLD; while, all embodied objects are said to occupy the MATERIAL WORLD. Is there any causal relationships between these two worlds? If yes, how does one explain it?
(h) Are the MATERIAL WORLD, on one hand, and the SPIRITUAL WORLD, on the other hand, parallel universes such that, each universe has its own spacio-temporal, four-dimensional, frame of reference?
(i) And, the human soul, angels, gods and God, demons, ghosts, and saints, are said to occupy a SPIRITUAL WORLD which runs in parallel with the MATERIAL WORLD. Is the former world a FACT of FICTION?
III. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Left unchallenged, the harmful, dark and destructive effects of superstitious and witchcraft laden beliefs have become common and recurrent problems in the third world countries, especially in Africa.
Until now, there have not been any major organized efforts to critically analyse, debate and dispel superstitions, myths, misconceptions and other deeply harmful beliefs which are premised on the alleged existence of a spiritual world running in parallel with the physical world.
Against this backdrop, the proponents of mind decolonization are called upon to uncompromisingly challenge these harmful ideas by offering a humane and rational alternative, drawing upon humanistic ethics and an appreciation for scientific methods of investigation.
It is along these lines of thinking, that this study seeks to bring clarity to the relationship that is said by witches, theologians and philosophers, to exist between matter and spirit. I suspect that, as we stand today, the relationships that is said to exist between matter and spirit is more superstitious than scientific. It is not INTELLECTUALLY GROUNDED yet.
So, if we are to generate and transmit to future generations WORLDVIEWS WHICH ARE INTELLECTUALLY GROUNDED, we have to review our understanding of the relationship that is said to exist between the “spiritual world,” on one hand, and the “material world,” on the other hand. This way, it is hoped, shall we be able to eliminate the superstitious and witchcraft-laden worldviews of our day.
IV. RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODS
Bearing in mind that, experiment, surveys, archival analysis, histories and case studies are the five common research strategies, each having its own strengths and weaknesses, we propose to adopt the case-study strategy in this research. The case-study strategy can have one or more cases, where it is called a multiple-case-study strategy if it addresses many cases.
The nature and scope of the present study suggests a divide-and-conquer strategy. So, we propose to use a MULTIPLE-CASE-STUDY strategy, entailing ten cases, namely:
- Christian Theology,
- Buddhist Theology,
- Hindu Theology,
- Islamic Theology,
- Mormonist Theology
- Witchcraft,
- Philosophy,
- Communism,
- Atheism, and
- Science.
In light of the strategy chosen, it follows that, for this strategy to bring the desired results, several methods should be employed in the investigation of the problem stated for this research. These are as follows:
(1) Expository Analysis
We shall begin by separately looking at the fundamental doctrinal claims of idealism, materialism and dualism. In this method we shall seek to give a comprehensive exposition of their conceptions of what matter and spirits are and how they are related.
(2) Comparative Analysis
After looking at the claims of each doctrine separately, we shall look at their similarities and differences with a view of determining their convergent and divergent points.
(3) Critical Appraisal
A critical evaluation of the three doctrinal views on the matter-spirit problem will be given. In seeking to give this critical evaluation two norms will be employed. The first is the adequacy in expressing the objectivity of the claims inherent in each doctrine. And the second is the adequacy in meeting the philosophical requirements of consistency and coherence. As a rule, critical appraisal will be preserved until a thorough elaboration of the three doctrinal positions has been fully made.
(4) Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning is the process of proving or demonstrating that if certain statements are accepted as true, then other statements can be shown to follow. Deductive reasoning can be used to prove that these new facts are true. Consider the following example of deductive reasoning: All humans are mortal (major premise); Socrates is human (minor premise); Socrates is mortal (conclusion).
Applying the deduction method on the general rule “all humans are mortal” (major premise) in the specific situation “Socrates is human” (minor premise), the conclusion can be drawn that “Socrates is mortal”. Notice that deductive reasoning provides no new information, it only rearranges information that is already known into a new statements or truths. So deductive reasoning proceeds as follows: “if this is true, than this is also true”. Deductive reasoning tests typically contain syllogisms as questions.
(5) Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is the synthetic process of observing data, recognizing patterns, and making generalizations from your observations. When you generalize and extrapolate the information, you don’t know for sure if this trend will continue, but you assume it will. You therefore don’t know for sure that a conclusion based on inductive reasoning will be 100% true. Consider the famous hypothesis is: ‘all swans are white.’
This conclusion was taken from a large amount of observations without observing any black swan and consequently logically assuming that black swans don’t exist. That is what inductive reasoning is all about. It entails looking at the given data, making a generalization, and extrapolating the pattern. Inductive reasoning is, therefore, a risky form of logical reasoning since the conclusion can as easily be incorrect when, looking at the swans example, a black swan is spotted.
(6) Abductive reasoning
Abductive is a middle ground between induction and deduction. It is somewhat similar to inductive reasoning. Conclusions drawn in abductive reasoning are based on probabilities. In abductive reasoning it is presumed that the most plausible conclusion is also the correct one.
Consider the following example: The jar is filled with yellow marbles (major premise); Bob has a yellow marble in his hand (minor premise); The yellow marble in Bob’s hand was taken out of the jar (conclusion).
By abductive reasoning, the possibility that Bob took the yellow marble from the jar is reasonable, however it is purely based on the speculation. The yellow marble could have been given to Bob by anyone, or Bob could have bought a yellow marble at a store. Therefore, abducing that Bob took the yellow marble, from the observation of “the yellow marble filled jar” can lead to a false conclusion.
Generally, abductive reasoning and the other two forms of logical inference (induction and deduction) are complementary operations of the human mind. Their differences can be stated as follows: Deduction infers a result (conclusion) that is certain; induction produces a rule (conclusion) that is valid until a contrary instance is found; abduction produces a case (conclusion) that is always uncertain, that is, merely plausible. The following different arrangements of the three elements of the same set, the elements being 'rule,' 'case' and 'result,' clarifies these differences:
For deductive inference we have the following arrangement of the three elements: All the beans from this bag are white (Rule); These beans are from this bag (case); These beans are white (result). Here, the sequence is: rule, case, and then result.
For inductive inference we have the following arrangement of the three elements: These beans are from this bag (case); These beans are white (Result); All the beans from this bag are white (rule). Here, the sequence is: case, result, and then rule.
And for an abductive inference we have the following arrangement of the three elements: All the beans from this bag are white (rule); These beans are white (result); These beans are from this bag (case). Here, the sequence is: rule, result, and then case.
Thus, in order for our process of inquiry to become methodologically complete, abduction (whose job is to form hypotheses for explaining an observation) shall be followed by both deduction (for logically deriving the consequences of the hypothesis) and induction (for empirically testing the predicted consequences of the hypothesis).
V. CALL FOR ACTION
This is a research proposal for every philosopher, qua philosopher. Thus, any philosopher who knows an answer to any of the above research questions, and is willing to share his/her knowledge, is kindly requested to post against this thread. You are all welcome!
