This piece relates to the understanding of market events as well as other events. Skip to the last few paragraphs if you don't want to read a bit of background structural analysis.
Reality isn’t just there to be only observed. You sometimes (and I stress, sometimes) bring forth a piece of reality from initially thinking about or believing something, whether true or false, and incorporating these thoughts or beliefs into perhaps established views about events. That is to say thoughts (whether true or false) would or might have to be entangled with other ‘true’ beliefs about events or reality to necessitate a change for the ‘real’.
The construction of a sound and/or valid argument is something that one might study and try to apply in the real world. Both rely on the premises leading to the conclusion, but for soundness, all premises need to be true. Validity doesn’t need all of the premises to be true. Deductive reasoning is sometimes used, but most people use inductive reasoning, which is a focal point here. Another focus is more complex day to day reasoning, not simplistic logical examples, or any mathematical or geometrical instances.
But what happens when one alters a conclusion? For it to be valid at least one of the premises might have to be altered accordingly for validity to be preserved. Soundness may not apply, because it technically needs true premises and therefore a true conclusion. But soundness is rarely applied in the real world, so I won’t focus on it here as much; rhetoric isn’t soundness by structure and rhetoric is applied more often in our real world (outside of some tertiary studies, of course). Just listen to radio jocks, politicians etc.
If you alter the conclusion and accordingly alter the premise, the premise can sometimes be or become true and this can happen by some anomalic widow of opportunity. I know that this is technically an erroneous practice in classical logic and this would not apply most of the time. But there is room for it to be applicable, at least, some of the time. In the inductive world this kind of adjustment might sometimes make sense or be accommodating, as absurd and as counter-intuitive it may be to classical logic theorems, or to the way we think about our classical world with our classically-conditioned minds.
Now in normal, everyday discussions, views etc, what we tend to hear are conclusions, based on some true premises, but quite often, they are baseless or not true. In the real world it tends not to matter, because we can easily believe a conclusion (from an inductive argument) to be true (even though it may not be) just by persuasion, predisposition, ignorance, speculation etc.
What a statement implies can gain some form of reality, even if the comment, conclusion, statement or belief is false. This doesn’t always occur, but it sometimes does in the real world. I’m not just saying if you believe something it can (sometimes) become real, to some extent or to one interpretation of ‘real’. What I’m saying is a little ‘bit’ of reality has been borne from a (but not just any) belief, statement, conclusion, premise, view or thought (and a combination of some of them, as long as there is (true or false) logical follow-through). I’m not saying that, for example, you can make ‘green’ real just by thinking or believing that something is green, when looking at, let’s say, red. You can’t. I’m talking about things or events that are more complex. I’m referring to every day events that we try to understand and make sense of and quite often by inductive reasoning. Sometimes we add a little ‘bit’ of reality to mix in with those events, just by believing that something is the case, even when it’s not! A falsehood, lie, incorrect view etc just doesn’t exist in some vacuum. It can (but not always) become a part of the real sets of events we are trying to make sense of. It may be technically incorrect to mix falsehoods with reality, but it happens (everyday) and there are outcomes or sequences which help make those views or thoughts real.
Look at the conclusion ‘China’s has robust growth’, and based on the premises: ‘its GDP is 8.9%, it has a cashed-up consumer, an emerging middle-class, it dominates manufacturing, has a healthy construction industry, and lots of governmental reserves to backstop any future debt problems’. But if I told you ‘China has robust growth’, you would probably believe me without the need to inspect any of those premises. If you did believe this conclusion, you may have indirectly made some if not most of the premises to this argument true or real (this doesn’t always apply though with other examples). The premises can become even more ‘factual’ if they are mixed-in with other anomalies like some other anecdotal observations, ‘facts’ like statistically China does consistently have near 9% growth and most people believe this to be the case anyway. This can make some of the premises true.
What I actually believe is ‘China doesn’t have robust growth at present (all things considered)’. I would have a hard time convincing many without resorting to the premises: ‘its consumers are mostly poor and can’t generate enough revenue to pay for present and future debt obligations especially with a one-child policy and the demographics that go with it, a struggling construction industry to some extent that has to deal with the black market for funds, huge government debt levels that cannot be paid for under a crony-capitalist model, and it lies about its real rate of inflation and other statistics’. Now it’s not necessarily the case, but if you bought this conclusion then you may have necessitated some of the premises too, even without seeing them. Some of the premises may have become true by default. I’m not saying this happens all the time and there are better examples out there. But there is room for this to occur and it happens in various forms and for different reasons every day when one deals with more complex issues in everyday life.
By altering a conclusion we are sometimes forced to alter at least one of the premises, to try and keep some sort of validity and coherency, even if we’re not aware we’re doing this. The premises and the conclusion has taken a slightly different look and the difference between the structure of the so-called argument (premise and conclusion) before and afterwards can sometimes ‘produce’ a different piece of reality, but not just in isolation. The change would or might have to be entangled with other beliefs about events or reality to necessitate a change for the ‘real’.