⛰️Although the term "fortress walls" is often used for this place, it is not entirely accurate. There is no fortress here, and no castle. Essentially, it is enclosed land.
The name Sighnaghi comes from the Turkic word sığınak — "shelter". Historians believe that the inhabitants of nearby villages would defend themselves here during enemy raids. The villages themselves also took part in maintaining the shelter, and each tower was assigned to a particular village.
I like climbing the towers and taking in the entire landscape at once. The entrance is low and dark, and inside there is a narrow spiral stone staircase. It reminded me of climbing church bell towers — broad-shouldered people might not even fit through 😁
Everything feels like an adventure, although each time I try to check myself. After all, places like this exist precisely because people had to — and still have to — save themselves from other people...
⛰️Несмотря на то, что для этого места используют термин "крепостные стены", это не совсем верно. Здесь нет крепости и нет замка. По сути, это огороженная земля.
Сигнахи происходит от тюркского слова sığınak — "убежище". Историки считают, что здесь укрывались и оборонялись жители окрестных сёл во время вражеских набегов. Причём сами деревни участвовали в поддержании убежища, а каждая башня была закреплена за определённым селом.
Мне нравится подниматься на башни и охватывать взглядом всю округу. Вход невысокий и тёмный, внутри — каменная винтовая лестница с узким проходом. Она напомнила мне подъёмы на колокольни церквей — широкоплечие люди могут и не пролезть 😁
Все воспринимается как приключение, хотя каждый раз стараюсь одёргивать себя. В конце концов, подобные места существуют именно потому, что людям приходилось — и приходится до сих пор — спасаться от других людей...
Deductive Reasoning - (or deductive logic) a type of argument used in both academia and everyday life.
Also known as deduction, the process involves following one or more factual statements (i.e. premises) through to their logical conclusion. In a deductive argument, if all the premises are true, and the terms correctly applied, then it holds that the conclusion will also be true.
This is alternatively referred to as “top-down” logic because it usually starts with a general statement and ends with a narrower, specific conclusion.
The general principles of deductive reasoning date back to the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Deductive reasoning is also at the heart of mathematics and computer programming.
Inductive Reasoning - (or inductive logic) a type of reasoning that involves drawing a general conclusion from a set of specific observations.
Some people think of inductive reasoning as “bottom-up” logic, because it involves widening specific premises out into broader generalizations.
Types of Inductive Reasoning
Generalized. This is the simple example given above, with the white swans. It uses premises about a sample set to draw conclusions about a whole population.
Statistical. This form uses statistics based on a large and random sample set, and its quantifiable nature makes the conclusions stronger. For example: “95% of the swans I’ve seen on my global travels are white, therefore 95% of the world’s swans are white.”
Bayesian. This is a method of adapting statistical reasoning to take into account new or additional data. For instance, location data might allow a more precise estimate of the percentage of white swans.
Analogical. This form notes that on the basis of shared properties between two groups, they are also likely to share some further property. For example: “Swans look like geese and geese lay eggs, therefore swans also lay eggs.”
Predictive. This type of reasoning draws a conclusion about the future based on a past sample. For instance: “There have always been swans on the lake in past summers, therefore there will be swans this summer.”
Causal inference. This type of reasoning includes a causal link between the premise and the conclusion. For instance: “There have always been swans on the lake in summer, therefore the start of summer will bring swans onto the lake.”
Types of Deductive Reasoning
There are 3 common types of deductive reasoning:
Syllogism
Modus ponens
Modus tollens
Syllogism. One common type of deductive reasoning is known as a syllogism. Syllogisms almost always appear in the three-line form, with a common term that appears in both premises but not the conclusion. Here is an example:
If a person is born in the 1970s, they’re in Generation X.
If a person is in Generation X, then they listened to music on a Walkman.
Therefore if a person is born in the 1970s, then they listened to music on a Walkman.
Modus Ponens. Another type of deductive reasoning is known as modus ponens and it follows this pattern:
If a person is born between 1981 and 1996, then they’re a millennial.
Miley was born in 1992.
Therefore Miley is a millennial.
This type of reasoning is also known as “affirming the antecedent,” because only the first premise is a conditional statement, and the second premise merely affirms that the first part of the previous statement (the antecedent) applies.
Modus Tollens. Yet another type of deductive reasoning is modus tollens, or “the law of contrapositive.” It is the opposite of modus ponens because its second premise negates the second part (the consequent) of the previous conditional statement. For example:
If a person is born between 1981 and 1996, then they’re a millennial.
Bruce is not a millennial.
Therefore Bruce was not born between 1981 and 1996.
Example of Deductive Reasoning
All men are mortal. (First premise)
Socrates is a man. (Second premise)
Therefore Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)
Here, the conclusion is true because the second premise defines Socrates as part of the subset “men,” who the first premise stipulated are all mortal. Note the progression from a general statement to a specific conclusion.
Example of Inductive Reasoning
All the swans I have seen are white. (Premise)
Therefore all swans are white. (Conclusion)
In this example, the conclusion is actually wrong—there are also black swans. This is what’s called a “weak” argument. However, it’s easy to make the conclusion stronger, by making it more probable:
All the swans I have seen are white. (Premise)
Therefore most swans are probably white. (Conclusion)
Ways Inductive Reasoning Is Used
Inductive reasoning is used in a number of ways, each serving a different purpose:
We use it in everyday life to build our understanding of the world.
Inductive reasoning also underpins the scientific method: scientists gather data through observation and experiment, make hypotheses based on that data, and then test those theories further. That middle step—making hypotheses—is an inductive inference, and they wouldn’t get very far without it.
Finally, despite the potential for weak conclusions, an inductive argument is also the main type of reasoning in academic life.
Inductive Reasoning & Deductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is one of the 2 main types of reasoning that people base their beliefs on. The other is deductive reasoning, or what’s sometimes known as a syllogism. An example of deductive reasoning is:
“All birds have feathers and swans are birds. Therefore swans have feathers.”
Logicians often prefer a deductive argument, because it produces rock-solid conclusions. However, this form of thinking is only useful in some, limited circumstances. Usually, it involves the opposite of generalizing, as it starts with general principles and works progressively towards a specific conclusion. It is sometimes known as a “top-down” argument, in contrast to the “bottom-up” approach of inductive reasoning.
Instead of being weak or strong, deductive reasoning produces either a valid argument or an invalid one, based on whether the premises necessitate the conclusion.
Deductive Reasoning & Inductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning is one of 2 basic types of reasoning that feature in a logical argument. The other is inductive reasoning. Where deductive reasoning is top-down thinking, an inductive argument is bottom-up—it starts with specific premises and draws a general conclusion from them. For example:
Miley and Jonas are millennials.
Miley and Jonas live in rented housing.
Therefore all millennials live in rented housing.
While this seems like it might produce some false conclusions—and sometimes it does—inductive reasoning plays an important role in problem-solving and decision making. It is about arriving at probably rather than certain conclusions. It is often how we develop theories or hypotheses about the world, and we can go on to test these by accumulating more data.
Deductive Reasoning & Abductive Reasoning
Abductive reasoning starts with specific observations and seeks the most likely explanation for them. It is the equivalent of the best guess. It can’t produce a definitely true conclusion like deductive reasoning, but it can still be a helpful way to process the real world. For instance:
Miley and Jonas are millennials.
Miley and Jonas live in rented housing.
Therefore many millennials can’t afford to buy their own homes.
Inductive Reasoning & Abductive Reasoning
There is a third process that is important in scientific reasoning, even though its conclusions can be unreliable. This process is abductive reasoning, which takes true premises and seeks the most likely explanation for them—like taking the best guess. As with inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning presents an opportunity to develop theories that a person can go on to test further. For example:
“There are always swans on the lake in summer but not in winter. Therefore swans like warm water.”
Valid Deductive & Invalid Deductive Reasoning
A “valid” deductive argument means that its conclusion must be true if its premises are true. But if the premises don’t necessitate the conclusion, the argument is “invalid.” For example:
All men are mortal. (First premise)
Lassie is mortal. (Second premise)
Therefore Lassie is a man. (Conclusion)
If there had been an additional premise that “only men are mortal,” then this conclusion would have been valid. As it is, Lassie can be a mortal dog.
I’ve been thinking about the role of electricity in the mythology of Meliora.
The 1920s marked the moment when electricity became universally accessible. Cities rapidly electrified, shaping the urban landscapes we know today. Electricity, available at the flick of a switch, was a monumental leap for humanity, which had previously relied on mechanical force alone.
This was the very fire Prometheus gifted to mortals. Society now held a tool that exponentially amplified its capabilities. What once belonged solely to the heavens — lightning striking from the sky, igniting trees — was now harnessed in every home. The power of gods, placed in human hands.
How would society wield it?
This is the core narrative of Meliora. Do we truly become "better" when granted such power? Recall Tobias’ words about the album:
“Well, it’s actually a reference to a very cool theme of the record being a reflection of the state of mind and the state of our souls nowadays in a modern world. The world is apparently picking that we are pursuing something better. I follow what’s going on and you must be pretty well aware… are we really getting better here? (laughs) This modern world is created very bleak, there is something wrong, there is something skewed with the modern world and we are not giving really answers but we are trying to hold you through the nudity of the modern world and that’s why we have the title “Meliora” which is ironic…you know, the big modern world… better, question mark?”
[x]
And further:
"It's more about the absence of God entirely, and how society reacts to that absence. You know the old saying, 'When the cat is out of the house, the mice will dance on the table'? "
[x]
The central question is this: What do we do with our capabilities during those historical moments when they surge abruptly? Tobias created the album at a time when the internet was growing uncontrollably, and he said online bullying was spreading like the plague. Now the emergence of AI, according to some experts, is comparable to the emergence of electricity in the 20th century. The question of how we are going to use this colossal resource is getting louder and louder. The problem is not even whether it will rise up against us or not, but what kind of world we will live in when there is something around that can think and reason for us. What it will give us and what it will take away.
For the record, Ellen isn't coming up with these on the spot. These are things she's been told. What she's doing is organizing them into arguments.
(Which is still an impressive thing to do on the spot like that.)
LOGIC!
Upon realizing I was confused about the distinctions between inductive and abductive reasoning, editing this page turned into a speed run to learn about philosophical reasoning.
Napoleon and space aliens got involved.
The cause of my confusion turned out to be this: Not everyone acknowledges abductive reasoning.
There are plenty of videos that treat deductive and inductive reasoning as a dichotomy. It took me a while to realize that, and it affected how I interpreted what I was hearing. The line between inductive and abductive reasoning started to blur, and I wondered why abductive reasoning was even a thing.
So I read a paper by Charles Sanders Peirce from 1878.
Titled Deductions, Inductions, and Hypotheses (and read by me in a collection called The Essential Peirce, Volume 1), it argued for the necessity of hypotheses and how they differed from induction (it read like an early case for what would become known as abductive reasoning).
It also claimed that Napoleon existing was a hypothesis.
Numberless documents and monuments refer to a conqueror called Napoleon Bonaparte. Though we have not seen the man, yet we cannot explain what we have seen, namely, all these documents and monuments, without supposing that he really existed. Hypothesis again.
And I wasn't kidding about space aliens. From later in the paper:
Now, the facts which serve as grounds for our belief in the historic reality of Napoleon are not by any means necessarily the only kind of facts which are explained by his existence. It may be that, at the time of his career, events were being recorded in some way not now dreamed of, that some ingenious creature on a neighboring planet was photographing the earth, and that these pictures on a sufficiently large scale may some time come into our possession, or that some mirror upon a distant star will, when the light reaches it, reflect the whole story back to earth.
I’ll say this for the Napoleon examples: I will never forget them.
ANYWAY! I felt significantly less confused after I read that, and I changed Ellen's induction example. My earlier confusion had, in fact, resulted in the original actually being abductive reasoning.
Hooray for reading and hypothetical Napoleon being photographed by aliens!
@danshive i hope you dont mind me reposting this to tumblr because i feel the people need to see this this is like the best guide ive come across to the different kinds of reasoning and i didnt even know about abductive reasoning
I don't even know what annoys me more... What are people trying in every possible way to make out of AU, where Frans plays an important role, an incomprehensible and unreasonable father-child relationship, or what do people draw on the fact of Frans, but do not accept this fact? Seriously... If you don't like shipp so much, why draw an AU in which it is canonical, but say that it is not... That would be just as unpleasant as in a universe where the canon is soriel, and I'll draw soriel, but I'll write that they're mother and son... Or in a ship with the canon of sancest, I'll draw them together, but I'll point out that they're just in a parent-child relationship... I really don't understand. There is no negativity in my post, I'm just curious and unclear, I'm trying to understand why people do this. Why do they draw an AU with a canonical ship, but reject it in every possible way? If you don't like it so much, can you create something of your own with a different story and name? I'm trying to figure out what the logic is...After all, if you think like that, then my universes may someday come under attack from this refutation of Frans... And I certainly don't want that.
Вопрос к иностранной аудитории...
Не знаю даже, что меня раздражает больше... То, что люди всячески пытаются делать из АУ, где Франс играет важную роль, непонятные и необоснованные отношения отца и ребёнка или то, что люди рисуют по факту франс, но не принимают этого факта? Ну серьёзно... Если вам так не нравится шипп, зачем рисовать АВ, в которой он каноничен, но говорить, что это не так... Это было бы так же неприятно, как и допустим во вселенной, где канон допустим сориэль, а я нарисую сориэль, но напишу, что они мать и сын... Или в шиппе с каноном санцест, нарисую их вместе, но укажу, что они просто в отношениях родитель - ребёнок... Я правда не понимаю. В моём посте нет негатива, мне просто интересно и непонятно, я пытаюсь понять, почему люди так делают. Почему они рисуют АУ с канонным шиппом, но всячески его отвергают? Если так не нравится, может создать что-то своё с другой историей и названием? Я пытаюсь понять, в чём логика... Ведь если так рассуждать, то и мои вселенные могут когда-то попасть под удар этого опровержения Франса... А я этого уж точно не хочу.
I’d like to reflect a bit on the subtle parallels between two seemingly very different characters — Duke and Ada.
At first glance, they appear to have nothing in common. But if you look closer, there’s a surprising number of similarities.
Both seek the spotlight and long for recognition. Duke manages it more naturally and effortlessly, while for Ada it often comes off as clumsy or strained. Still, that shared desire to be seen is something they both carry.
They also share a kind of fixation on high society — though in opposite ways. Ada is a humble maid who admires the aristocracy and dreams of becoming a lady. Duke, on the other hand, despises the upper class — perhaps precisely because he was never part of it. Yet he, too, tried to make his way into that world.
Duke and Ada are both deeply loyal. When someone becomes truly important to them, they’re willing to go to great lengths — even self-sacrifice. Both have made conscious choices to face pain, danger, or loss for the sake of someone they love. You can clearly see this in their relationships with Lenore and Annabel.
They also seem to accept their own deaths with a kind of quiet resignation, worrying more about the loved ones they leave behind than about themselves.
Both were betrayed by people they trusted. Their deaths came as a direct result of that vulnerable trust.
And finally, behind their sharp edges and difficult personalities, both Duke and Ada hide softness, kindness, and emotional vulnerability — qualities they don’t show easily or right away.
