Philosophy Lesson #1 — Perceiving What Is Aligned with Reality, and What is Not
Today, we will sharpen our critical thinking skills using foundational philosophical tools, and apply them to a specific cultural product: the documentary series ‘The Men Who Killed Kennedy’. Our goal is to learn how to see through certain types of philosophical errors—so-called fallacies—which are often used in manipulation, persuasion, and even gaslighting. We will practice distinguishing between what aligns with reality, and what does not.
Assignment:
‘The Men Who Killed Kennedy’ is a nine-episode mini-series that received both critical acclaim and stirred considerable controversy. It presents a conspiracy theory surrounding the infamous assassination of President John F. Kennedy. However, it remains uncertain how much of the series’ claims are actually provable or grounded in solid evidence.
Consider this assignment as a mental sport. Download the mini-series or find it on a streaming platform. Watch it alone or with friends or family. Your task is to identify and analyze the logical fallacies it employs while presenting its narrative as truth. What assumptions are being made? What inductions or generalizations are drawn? Find as many as you can, note them down, and build an essay explaining your reasoning.
You will likely find the experience both challenging and astonishing.
Questions:
→ What claims use sound deduction?
→ What claims misuse it?
→ What rely on plausible or implausible induction?
→ What lean on assumptions?
For each claim, ask:
→ Is it verifiable?
→ Can it be tested?
→ Or is it dramatic, but unproven?
This matters especially when dealing with conspiracy narratives. They often feel true—but evade scrutiny.
By learning to use deduction, induction, and assumption-testing, you build a sharp, reality-based mind. You become harder to manipulate—clearer, deeper, freer. Thus, thinking transforms into noticing—as an unrigid art form.
Checklist for Checking Premises:
→ Clearly stated?
→ Fact-based?
→ Just an assumption?
→ Based on probability?
→ Tested—or testable?
→ Relevant to the conclusion?
→ Are there alternatives?
→ Emotionally or ideologically biased?
Two Important Philosophical Quotes:
“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”
— Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (§109)
In the original German:
“Die Philosophie ist ein Kampf gegen die Verhexung unseres Verstandes durch die Mittel unserer Sprache.”
Wittgenstein reminds us that many philosophical problems are not problems of reality, but of language—how we use and misunderstand it.
*
Socrates and the Oracle of Delphi
It is said that one day, Socrates traveled to the Oracle of Delphi to seek guidance on who was the wisest person in Athens, as he was looking for a master from whom he could learn. The Oracle replied, “It is you, Socrates; you are the wisest man of Athens and of our time!” But Socrates did not think this could be true, so he went to the city to speak with the so-called “wise men” of the law.
After conversing with them for a while, he began to sense that what they were saying lacked real resonance with reality. Their voices and examples did not echo authentic experience but seemed merely to repeat learned concepts that were not founded on anything real. Socrates therefore came to the conclusion: “It seems that none of us knows anything of true value. However, they believe they know something without really knowing it, while I know that I truly know nothing, nor do I imagine that I do.”
And from this story comes the famous saying: “The wisest is the one who knows what he does not know.”
“I know that I know nothing.”
— Attributed to Socrates, via Plato’s Apology
In Greek: ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα — Hen oida hoti ouden oida.
“I know one thing: that I know nothing.”
Though this exact phrase is not verbatim in Plato, it distills Socrates’ central insight: philosophical humility. Knowing that one does not know is both the beginning, and the end of philosophy.
Thought Filters and the Five D’s
We all interpret reality through mental filters—not due to stupidity, but often because of ignorance, wishful thinking, or our brain’s need to simplify a complex world. These simplifications can distort reality. Let’s learn to spot them.
The Five D’s:
→ Delete — What information has been left out?
→ Distort — How have facts been twisted?
→ Generalize — Are broad conclusions drawn from limited data?
→ Distinction — What certain categories are shaping the interpretation?
→ Decide — What assumptions are made without evidence?
Adequate Idea: “The Sun is Immense”
If you hold up your fingers toward the sky, the Sun might appear to be just a few centimeters wide. A child with limited information might think the Sun is small. But in reality, the Sun is immense. When we grasp the truth of its size—150 million kilometers away, yet warming our skin—we come into deeper alignment with reality. That’s what Spinoza calls an Adequate idea.
Greek: Ἥλιος ἐστὶ μέγας — Hēlios esti megas
“The Sun is Great.”
Three Cognitive Tools
Now we will explore three foundational reasoning tools:
→ Deduction
→ Induction
→ Assumption
1. Deduction — General to Particular
→ If A implies B, and A is true, then B must also be true.
Example:
1. All mammals have backbones.
2. A dog is a mammal.
3. Therefore, a dog has a backbone.
Deduction is logically certain. If your premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
2. Induction — Particular to General
We observe many individual cases and form a general rule.
Example:
1. I’ve seen 100 swans,
2. and all were white.
3. Therefore, all swans are white.
Induction is not certain—it is probable. The conclusion might hold true, but it is not guaranteed.
| Aspect: | Deduction | Induction |
| Direction: | General → Particular | Particular → General |
| Truth Value: | Guaranteed (if premises are true) | Probable, not certain |
| Used In: | Logic, Math | Science, Statistics |
Faulty Induction Example:
1. I met a Norrlänning. He was quiet.
2. Then another, also quiet.
3. A third, very quiet.
Therefore: All Norrlänningar must be quiet.
Deduction Based on The Above Faulty Generalization:
1. All Norrlänningar are quiet.
2. Lisa is a Norrlänning.
3. Therefore, Lisa must be quiet.
But then you meet Lisa; She is loud, lively, funny. The faulty deduction is now replaced by experienced reality.
3. Assumption — Accepting Without Proof
Definition:
→ An assumption is a statement taken as true without verification. It might be a starting point—but it’s untested.
Example:
A film is banned in several countries. Someone assumes this must mean the film reveals a hidden truth. “The elites must be censoring it.” But films are banned for many reasons—commercial, political, cultural. The ban does not prove truth.
Another Example of a Faulty deduction:
The following example illustrates how faulty generalizations or incorrect premises within a deduction can lead to a distorted conclusion that does not necessarily align with reality.
1. The upper class becomes wealthy by engaging in legal theft.
2. Legal theft is morally wrong.
3. Therefore, to become wealthy, one must engage in morally wrong actions.
4. I am not wealthy.
5. Therefore, I must be morally good.
The Fragility of Premises
Here’s the key insight: Deductive reasoning gives certainty if the premises are true. But what if they aren’t?
Premises may be:
→ Pure assumptions
→ Probabilistic generalizations
→ Entirely false
A formally valid argument can still be factually wrong.
Example:
1. All conspiracy theories are false. (assumption)
2. This film is a conspiracy theory.
3. Therefore, this film is false.
Logically correct—yet built on a shaky foundation.
Final Thought: Think About How You Think
Deduction is only as reliable as its premises.
That’s why it’s vital to:
→ Identify your starting assumptions
→ Check if they’re testable
→ Be ready to question them
This is called metacognitive awareness; thinking about thinking.
Wider Reflection:
Many ideologies and religions begin with the assumption that something is fundamentally wrong with certain traits in individuals, with other groups of people, and even with the world itself. But perhaps neither the world nor others are broken at all—only deliberately misunderstood by the ideology that seeks to label and categorize its opponents.
→ The sun still rises.
→ Nature still feeds.
→ People still laugh.
→ Life continues.
—
In the Spirit of Adventure, The Guide
See Also: Definition of Philosophy
