“If it Looks Like a Duck…”

Oddly enough with most things the math is easier and less complicated than we make it.

 “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

This famous test is an example of ‘abductive reasoning’ – it’s is a form of logical inference that seeks the simplest and most likely conclusion from a repeated or sustained set of observations – basically, firsthand observations of what was said – what was done – what was the behavior?

The test implies that we can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject’s habitual characteristics – it can be used to counter perplexing arguments that something is not what it appears to be – in fact, logic and reason are actually helpful, verses continuing to listen to just one source reference the subject of ambiguity.

For example, this famous quote from the movie “The Wizzard of Oz” –  “…oh pay no attention to that man behind the curtain…” – the subject of ambiguity was the wizard, who insisted no one should look behind the curtain – when in fact, the best course of action for clarity and transparency was to look behind the curtain.

Now, I don’t mean to be insulting, demeaning, or sarcastic – I do mean to remind us of one of the oldest and most reliable tests to help us sort out the antics of the many mind-numbing politicians, news media outlets, talking heads, so called church leaders, grifters, and anyone stumping for our resources, time, and attention:

“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”

 “If they lie like a liar, supports liars, and repeat lies from liars, then they probably are liars.”

“If they fail and deny it, support failures, and repeat antics from failures, then they probably are failures.”

“If they don’t practice what they preach, if they preach false teachings, and they support those who do the same, then they are probably false preachers/teachers.”

“If they keep or misuse monies they grifted, if they misrepresent how these monies were used, and support others who do the same, then they are probably fake/fraudulent grifters – not worthy of our resources.”

“If they break the law like a criminal, break rules that apply to them, and cover up for those that do the same, then they are probably a criminal.”

“If they don’t have respect for basic human rights, ignore those in need for the affluent, and oppress others for personal gain, then they probably are self-centered and self-serving – not worthy of our attention.”

“If they’re funded by the wealthy, embrace the agendas of the lobbyist, and promote plans and programs that benefit the prosperous minority, then they probably are in the pockets of the agenda driven rich and powerful.”

“If they don’t support justice for all, ignore injustice in policing, courts, health care, financing, voting, education and endorse others who do the same, then they probably should not make policy for a nation that promotes “liberty and justice for all.”

We can do this all day – we can go on and on with this, but you get the point – sometimes our own instincts based on our firsthand observations are the best source for sorting out truth from false narratives.

Quack quack…