Whether you go deductive of inductive the conclusions we are seeing have been flawed.
The real issue is that most of what we see in the press and from politicians is binary cause and effect thinking. We need to be abductive...
---
For instance tax cuts may decrease or increase revenue depending on a number of factors.
The vast majority of lefties deny that tax deductions can a do sometimes results in revenue increases.
We always see a ton of deductive and inductive reasoning when it come to tax cuts...
Abductive Realty... in a system where govt borrows to spend money but the FED creates money independent of what the govt spends... revenues are almost always going to go up because the FED has created system inflation.
Conclusion for those who think in systems and realize we have limited knowledge..
if revenues are going to rise anyway... why not cut taxes some more until revenues cease going up within a few years or isolate the FED variable and have them cease creating excess money for a few years to see if tax cuts hurt revenues.
--
Now if you wish we can go over the same issues in other areas... say the impact of man made co2.
Perhaps a more simple area would be the impact of increased labor supply on wages.
A interesting one would be the impact of criminalizing marijuana on crime and urban communities or the impact of a govt handout cliff on upward mobility.
Or the increase of wealth mal distribution on the 99.5 percent of tax payers... when you increase taxes.
Or the impact of taxes on the ability of cronies to buy the govt.
See, the problem is that almost everyone works inductively to arrive at conclusions. The hard part is going the other way, and trying to unravel the axioms that you used to arrive at your conclusion and making sure they are truly correct and complete for what you are trying to prove. It is hard even in math, let alone in ambiguous systems of communication like human language.
Garbage In. Garbage Out.
And what is worse, you have no way to tell if what you input is garbage or not.