"Loyalty Is a Human Feeling"

Most people are irrational; therefore to persuade the masses, pains must be taken to rouse their emotions.

Sigmund Freud usually gets credit for this idea. Nevertheless, whether consciously or unconsciously, Western politicians used his observation as a political stratagem even before he had discovered it, mobilizing the public at the polls. Party feeling, Sir Henry Maine observed, has proven itself more persuasive among constituents than reasoned arguments.

During World War I, Bertrand Russell observed that in a state of hysteria or severe anxiety, even the more cerebral people in society let rational considerations fall by the wayside, pursuing irrational ends.

Today, corporations -- and astute individuals -- capitalize on these tenets.

Above, Simon Sinek discusses how successful corporations predicate their business models.

Upload By FORA.TV

Video madness

LongboardColombia rider Camilo Céspedes recently uploaded his video Frame by Frame. The film is a refreshing reminder of what video really is: a roll of freeze frames moving really fast. Céspedes' slide show slows things down enough for the twenty-first century student to observe the true tenor of motion picture.

Upload by LongboardColombia

LongboardColombia

LongboardColombia, Loadedboards' exclusive Loadedboard and Orangatang distributor in Colombia, hopes to facilitate community growth through shared experiences in longboard skateboarding.

Map by Grolier



Pablo, Loadeds' international sales guru, says that Loaded looks for international distributors who share and practice its ideology: experience the soulful experience of riding and pass on the stoke through fraternity with other riders.


In South America, Loaded and Orangatang grant one lucky merchant an exclusive franchise to sell its products in the country, Pablo says, to prevent discord among shops and riders, others say, to eliminate competition, keeping prices high.  Bottom line, the boards cost the consumer more in Latin America.  Expensive shipping fees and import customs hike up prices.  Competition might make the enterprise unprofitable.


LongboardColumbia has been showcasing Loadeds' boards and wheels for more than three years now.  More recently, however, the company has started adding to Loadeds' massive collection of skate videos on the Web.

Upload by LongboardColombia

Like a little Loadedboard colony, LongboardColumbia is Loadeds' gateway to trade in Colombia.  It's this type of subsidiary that has made Loadeds' vision a global enterprise.

The President's Address on Libya

Last night, America's 44th president, President Obama, delivered a well thought out talk on "what we've done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us," said President Obama--referencing the rebellion in Libya.


Background:


In the middle of February, Libyan citizens unleashed an aggressive rebellion against Libyan president, Muammar Gaddafi.  Feb. 21, Democracy Now! reported that protestors had set the Libyan Parliament ablaze.  Gaddafi and the Libyan military, the latter of which, demolishing, raping and killing, responded with extreme force.



Visual By Grolier


The Talk:


According to President Obama, Libyan protesters are rebelling to re-claim their "basic human rights."  Natural rights, one of America's "core values" (as delineated by the chief of state), are worth defending, said President Obama. The defense of these "core values" and the broader protection of American interests were the reasons given for American entanglement in the conflict.

Suggesting that inertia in Libya could lead to absolutism in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia, President Obama expressed fear that a deprivation of U.S. support in Libya would somehow infringe on American interests--however, whatever those are remains to be determined. In addition, the president made repeated reference to an ancillary reason for U.S. entanglement: safeguarding the Libyan people.


President Obama's speech comes after the climax of U.S. involvement has passed.  Wednesday, explained the president, NATO will take the helm, limiting America's further contribution in the effort to logistical support, search and rescue, intelligence and the jamming of regime communications. President Obama says that limited involvement will reduce the conflict's cost to American tax payers and save American lives.


The president prefaced all this important information, during the first 10 minutes of his 27 minute speech, with a description of U.S. action taken in the region since the outbreak of the rebellion. 

The following is a brief summary of that description:

• Gaddafi begins attacking his people.
  

• Obama evacuates the U.S. Embassy in Libya, freezes $33 billion of Gaddafi assets, establishes an arms embargo, broadens sanctions and holds Gaddafi accountable for his crimes.
  

• Obama asks Gaddafi to step down from power.
  

• Gaddafi escalates his attacks.
  

• Obama declares a no-fly zone over Libya.
  

• The international community unites behind President Obama.
  

• Obama initiates military action. He targets military assets.  He hits Gaddafi's troops.  He wipes out Gaddafi's air defenses. He hits Gaddafi's tanks.  And he strikes regime forces in Banghazi.

Robert Emmet and the Rebellion of 1798

Pictured below is Ruan O'Donnell, Author of Robert Emmet and the Rebellion of 1798.

Ruan O'Donnell
Photo by University of Limerick

In Robert Emmet and the Rebellion of 1798, Ruan O’ Donnell argues that Robert Emmet has not received the credit he is due from historians for fomenting and facilitating rebellion during Ireland’s inaugural period of revolution. Tucked away in the book’s preface, O’Donnell’s thesis asserts that a broader view of Emmet’s dealings in the revolutionary period necessitates Emmet’s reassessment. But O’Donnell doesn't stop at redefining Emmet. O’Donnell also redefines the rebellion. He shows, in extravagant detail, that the struggle was really a wider conflict than a group of disjointed battles during the summer of 1798—the battle wasn’t over after Humbert’s capitulation, and the battle had begun long before the mobilization of rebels on May 23.

Again, it is O’Donnell’s opinion that the only way one can really understand Emmet or his role in the Rebellion of 1798 is to acquaint one’s self with everything and everyone surrounding Emmet; accordingly, O’Donnell’s study emigrates from rather than immigrates to Emmet—he is the hub. He starts this endeavor with a chapter that details Emmet’s early life by delineating the prominent figures in it and chronicling the evolution of their revolutionary sentiment. According to O’Donnell, the enormous tree of associations and contacts began with Emmet’s grandfather. Then, given the activities of his father and elder brother, this base of contacts grew even wider. O’Donnell shows how the family’s wealth, geographical location, associates, and connections abroad facilitated Emmet’s revolutionary involvement.


From here, O’Donnell ventures to a chapter describing the United Irishmen by drawing the connections between Emmet, its leaders, and its ideology. O’Donnell shows the intimate involvement of the Emmet family in the group’s creation. He presents evidence indicating the omnipresence of Irish nationalism in Emmet’s life from an early age. He then describes an important turning point in Emmet’s life: his voluntary withdrawal from Trinity College and subsequent disbarment from institutions of higher education elsewhere. From this point on Emmet was inextricably intertwined with the revolutionary cause, because he was one of the few United Irishmen who had logical incentives, in addition to emotional incentive, to see through the success of the revolution.

Next O’Donnell dives into a chapter recalling the summer and early fall of 1798, again showing the important actors, developments, and Emmet’s ties to them. O’Donnell’s discussion takes a clearer pro-rebel bias at this juncture, describing the myriad atrocities committed by loyalist forces but then gathering few facts about the crimes against humanity that rebels presumably committed. Once that year’s battles were dealt with, O’Donnell starts to detail the major events between 1798 and 1803 by tracing lines of connection between them and Emmet. According to O’Donnell, it was in these years that Emmet’s role in the revolutionary struggle expanded and escalated. Then the final chapter analyzes the preparations on and influences from the continent apropos of the revolutionary struggle, mostly in regard to the uprising planned to take place in 1803.


The culmination of all this analysis is an image of Emmet not as a warrior but as a shadowy mastermind, a puppet-master pulling the strings almost strictly behind the scenes. O’Donnell asks the reader to understand Emmet by observing him in context, and once given that context—1793-1803—and the evidence he arraigns, the picture he articulates is difficult to shake off. After reading and contemplating this study, it is difficult to view the Rebellion of 1798 strictly as a summer-time struggle.  O’Donnell's study adds not only real depth to Emmet but also to the Rebellion of 1798, elucidating the tenor and extent of the conflict. 

O’Donnell achieves these aims over the course of five chapters, each broken down into smaller subsections making it an ideal study for researchers in pursuit of specific information. As a side note, this biography is a repository of names and affiliations and might be useful to someone wanting to ascertain particular participants in the rebellion. Finally, O’Donnell’s work is well organized and well suited to twenty-first century students. Its non-linear organization makes it a valuable tool to a wider range of inquirers.

Porn Pastor Video Follow Up

Video uploaded by triplexchurchpress

I like Ron Jeremy's rebuttal here. In concrete language, Jeremy raises the question of representation: how representative of sentiment in the porn industry are the porn-stars who feel degraded? How representative of Christian porn viewers are these particular discontented individuals? What is the consensus here?

Jeremy doesn't give the evidence or statistics to prove that these feelings and these people are unrepresentative of the collective whole, but he raises the question, which is an important one to ask when considering an assertion or argument.

In the video below, a pastor talks about his porn addiction.



Porn Free (Trailer to full story) from CSS Ministry Resources on Vimeo.

Porn Pastor?

A self proclaimed porn pastor, Craig Gross of San Diego California, has started a movement to bring evangelists into the porn industry.

xxxchurch.com

Craig Gross
Photo by Craig Gross

 

After getting to know him, through Vimeo and Youtube, I've concluded that Pastor Gross believes in the Lutheritic idea that the Bible is God's sacred Word, obsessively justifying his beliefs with decontextualized quotes from scripture.  Gross approaches this ancient collection of letters and books with a suprisingly present minded attitude.  Further, he seems to conflate the spiritual realm--the absolute realm--with the realm of human reality.  

The Upshot?

Porn seems like a big deal. 

His mission?

In an ABC interview, Gross professes a want to minimize the number of people affected by the porn industry, a humanitarian errand motivated by feelings of ruth and pity.  He reproaches porn consumption and production, saying it misrepresents the reality of sexual relations and objectifies women.

In more recent interviews, however, Gross' professed objectives have evolved a little.  Now Gross is pitching an agenda that focuses more on relief than reproach. 


Gross' Website


I wanted to add a little depth to this presumably urepresentative account of Gross, but as far as the public is concerned, the man is a ghost outside his entrepreneurial pursuits and philanthropic missions. 

Maritime Manifestations

I came across a curious manifestation the other day.  I don’t know whether any scientific scholarship discussing said manifestation already exists, but if it does, I would like to take this moment to add to the existing scholarship by chronicling my experience.


The sand was cold but the water was calm; the sun was genial: the air as fragrant as new-mown hay. 


We were at Delray Beach sitting Indian style on a ragged pink quilt.  My girlfriend and I unpacked our BLTs and flavored drinks, chatting about fishy personifications and crime fighting grocers.

Within minutes of un-wrapping our sandwiches, seabirds alighted only a few feet from our quilt.  Trying to act disinterested in our food, or us for that matter, the birds pecked around at shells and other small objects in the sand.  But the more we ignored the nervous little foragers, the closer they shuffled.  And shuffle closer they did.

Soon we were surrounded; the seabirds prowled around us, like hungry hyenas, hastened strides hemming us in. 


Feeling a little anxious, I stood up to scare them away. As I leaned forward and flailed my arms a little, one aviated but the rest just took a few hops back, though did so indifferently, almost unphased.  

Two minutes later, the seagulls had slunk back while my girlfriend and I had been conversing.  Now a little annoyed, I jumped up again to scare them with my rubber arms but had to feign a predatory pounce before the impudent little white birds either took to the sky or bounced a few paces back. 

Similar strands of events went on every few minutes or so for the next 20 or 25 minutes, the seabirds shuffeling back little by little and me flailing my arms to and fro. 

But then, with two BLT sandwich halves to spare, the birds had given up.  Somehow, six or seven failed attempts to urge us into a feeding frenzy had convinced the birds that we didn't want to feed them. 


We didn't even finish one of the halves.  But the seabirds were gone. 

That was when all this "bird scaring" got me to thinking.


Was I actually scaring them, or were they thinking rationally, collecting observable evidence and concluding inductively?  Let me rephrase that.  Did the seabirds move because pangs of fear shook through their hollow bones, or did the birds move because they had concluded, after a thorough process of trial and error, that we would not relent? 


Or was their action a response to some distressing inward feeling?  Did I finally instill fear in the seabirds after "scaring" them away six or seven times?    

They never seemed scared.  The seagulls, as it were, moved in the interests of safety; they didn't give up right away.  Accordingly, was the discontinuance of their persistence actually an expression of foresight?  Did the seabirds expect that no food would be given no matter how insistent their urgings? 

This all amounts to these final questions: Do birds think rationally?  Can birds, like humans, make general conclusions by collecting observable evidence and then put those conclusions to use in particular situations, so as to not waste any more of their time pursuing something that they feel confident will amount to nothing? And, if not, why did the birds give up before the food was gone? 

Any takers? 

BOOK REVIEW

The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective

In one of his most recent publications The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective, Robert C. Allen, over the course of 11 chapters and two sections, argues that the high cost of labor and the abundance of coal in northern and western Britain provided the requisite circumstances for an industrial revolution.

His argument comes with some subtle niceties, like the importance of Britain’s "not too big" "not too small population," which he glosses over, but on the whole, he puts forth his argument clearly and in astute detail. 

In part one of this book, Allen demonstrates the medieval origins of the Industrial Revolution.  He posits that the Black Death freed up more and better grazing land for sheep, thereby fattening them and subsequently lengthening their undercoats.  Britain’s then mercantilist approach to economics resulted in the placement of a heavy tax on wool exports.  This tax helped guarantee that Britons would reap the then greater rewards of selling finished product.  Accordingly, the emergence of long-haired sheep in Britain led to a lucrative textile trade between Britons and their continental counterparts.

Once the textile industry took off, Britons had reason to move to London.  Emigration from the countryside, to work in the textile business, raised the nation’s level of urbanization.  And greater urbanization meant greater demand for produce, finally goading farmers to improve their age-old practices and innovate on the land. 

At this point, Londoners were making more than subsistence, and this demographic could afford luxury goods now. Creating a market for new goods, clocks, tobacco, sugar, etc., British affluence had prompted a consumer revolution.

Yeomen who wanted to participate in this consumer revolution were faced with two options: give up and move to the city or improve agricultural yields.  Many chose the former, but some stuck it out.  And those farmers who did endure accomplished improvements in yield by reducing labor or increasing the productivity of the land. 

Eventually, not only Londoners but everyone in Britain was earning more than mere subsistence, and participation in the consumer revolution, further fueled by raw materials and finished products flowing out of colonial acquisitions, exploded.

  Then in part two, Allen explains that the high cost of labor and the proliferation of coal in Britain made it profitable to undertake R&D, which sought to eliminate labor, usually replacing it with coal. 

From the R&D stage, Britain then moved to another phase, in industrial innovation, that Allen calls “local learning.”  “Local learning,” a process where inventions were improved by the sharing of innovations among the members of communities across Great Britain, eventually improved technology invented by high dollar R&D projects with low dollar daily business operations.

 In the end, Allen explains, the technology invented to circumvent British economic biases was improved past a “tipping point” in which the technology was so improved that its implementation was made profitable on the continent and overseas.

BOOK REVIEW

The Whig Interpretation Of History

In The Whig Interpretation Of History, Herbert Butterfield contends that the “Whig” interpretation of history does not reflect the evidence of the past.  He demonstrates this failure, seeking, through foil, to explain how amateur and professional historians should approach the evidence of the past.

Butterfield observes that, presumably at least up unto the time of his exposition, historians have been adhering to malicious tenets, and his aim is to highlight them, showing his reader what history is by making it clear what history is not. 

He pursues his aim in five chapters, “The Underlying Assumption,” “The Historical Process,” “History and Judgments of Value,” “The Art of The Historian,” and “Moral Judgments in History,” each of which focuses on a different problem with the “Whig” interpretation of history.

In these divisions, Butterfield sets about his diatribe. He begins by chastising his peers and predecessors for fashioning a present minded interpretation of history.  He argues that too many historians have written their histories from the viewpoint that the present day represents the absolute, constructing a story of protagonists and antagonists in some over-arching narrative of progress. On page 29 he writes,

But it is the thesis of this essay that when we organise our general history by reference to the present we are producing what is really a gigantic optical illusion; and that a great number of the matters in which history is often made to speak with most certain voice, are not inferences made from the past but are inferences made from a particular series of abstractions from the past—abstractions which by the very principle of their origin beg the very questions that the historian is pretending to answer.

This quote alludes to his next point, that history interpreted with a focus on the present confuses the audience, leaving them with a false sense of causal relationship between events and people.  On page 47 he writes, “History is not the study of origins; rather it is the analysis of all the mediations by which the past was turned into our present.”  In other words, there really is no true narrative.  Ultimately he deems this interpretation of history as a means to an end.  He postulates that perhaps it arose to deal with the difficult question of how to abridge history. 

Highlighting the problem with the “Whig” belief that historians are seers, Butterfield treads deeper into his phillipic.  Here, he argues that historians are valuable not as fortune-tellers or prognosticators but as mediators. Butterfield believes that history is too intricate to be predicted.  He thinks that a historian should first seek to understand the evidence of the past and then, appealing to an argot familiar to his contemporaries, seek to explain it.  He thinks that a historian needs to immerse himself or herself in the world of the people he studies. Furthermore, he argues that the debunking of post hoc misconceptions further adds to the value of careful historical research.  And he illustrates this point with a short discourse about Martin Luther and the Reformation.

 In the second to last subdivision of his book, “The Art of The Historian,” Butterfield explains that a historian should, above all else, seek to understand the people he writes about.  A historian should want to know why a certain person thinks what they think or believes what they believe.  On page 96 he says, “But the true historical fervour is the love of the past for the sake of the past.”

He then goes on to give what he considers the proper paradigm for abridging history.  On page 103 he says, “It is not the selection of facts in accordance with some abstract principle….It is the selection of facts for the purpose of maintaining the impression—maintaining, in spite of omissions, the inner relations of the whole.”

Concluding his treatise, Butterfield denounces all moral judgments in historical writing.  He goes about this with an all out assault against Lord Acton and his adherence to maintaining the moral integrity of history.  Ultimately, according to Butterfield, it is not the historian’s job to decide who is right and who is wrong but rather to understand.

            Butterfield’s work is linear.  So linear that if a reader puts down his book to cook a potato, he won’t know what Butterfield is talking about when he gets back.  In the twenty-first century, non-linear media is everywhere and thus this book may be difficult for the modern student to fully comprehend without excessive re-reading.  In sum, his exegesis is astute but at times, due largely to his excessive use of pronouns, unclear and difficult to follow.           

Improve Your Writing

When you write, above all else, experiment with different techniques to see which word combination best represents the stimuli that you seek to capture.  Cast your picture. Read it. Then ask yourself, “Is this communication representative of the stimuli that I want to capture?” What combination of words best represents the picture you want to capture?

Know your options

• Sentence Fragment
• Clause
• Phrase
• Word
• Paragraph
• Sentence

Adjective Choices   

• Adjective
• Relative Clause
• Present Participle
• Past Participle
• Linking Verb
• Infinitive Phrase
• Appositive Phrase
• Prepositional Phrase
• Past Participial Phrase
• Present Participial Phrase

Noun Choices

• Noun
• Gerund
• Gerund Phrase
• Noun Clause
• Pronoun

 Adverb Choices           

• Adverb
• Adverb Clause
• Prepositional Phrase
• Infinitive Phrase
• Absolute Phrase

 Verb Choices

• Transitive
• Intransitive
• Di-transitive
• Complex-transitive
• Linking

Voice Choices

• Active
• Passive

Mood Choices

• Indicative
• Imperative 
• Subjunctive

Punctuation Choices          

• Comma
• Period
• Em-dash
• Colon
• Semicolon
• Parenthesis

Ownership Choices           

• Apostrophe/Apostrophe ‘S’
• Prepositional Phrase
• Possessive Pronoun
• Relative Clause

Arrangement Choices

• Where will I put my adverb phrase?  (Read your sentences aloud.  Your ears will help you decide where phrases, words or clauses fit naturally in a sentence.)
• How far will I situate my participial phrase or relative clause from the word that it modifies? 
• Do I want to reverese my subject-verb order? 
• Will I use an expletive construction to invert the subject-verb order? 
• Should I make the reader pause?                                                                                                            

                       

           

Paragraphing

Paragraph Theory

Paragraphs make it easier for the reader to follow the directions given to him by a word or words.  They make it easier to see what the words are pointing to.  A paragraph is an organizational tool, reducing the strain on the reader’s eyes and mind.  Writers use paragraphs to help the reader find the pieces that construct his/her picture.  Effective paragraphing, therefore, improves the pace of comprehension.  This quicker comprehension helps the mind hold the picture together.  In other words, paragraphs help a reader see your picture.

Paragraphing Models

·          

A)    Picture (paragraph v)
             Piece 1 (paragraph v)

              Piece 2 (paragraph w)

              Piece 3 (paragraph x)

              Piece 4 (paragraph y)

              Piece 5 (paragraph z)

·        

B)    Picture (paragraph v)

                   Piece 1 (paragraph v)

                   Piece 2 (paragraph v)

                   Piece 3 (paragraph v)

                   Piece 4 (paragraph v)

                   Piece 5 (paragraph v)

A)  Helps a reader most when the pieces are large: more than one sentence.

B)  Helps a reader most when the pieces are small: usually just one sentence.

Paragraph Utility

Writers use paragraphs

               to shift in person.

               to shift in tense. 

               to shift in speaker.

to aid the reader’s eyes.  (It is easy for a set of eyes to get lost in a sea of words.  Words tell ‘where’ but words don’t control a reader and, what's more, they don't control the reader's eyes.  The reader’s eyes have to be able to find their way around prose on their own.)

to organize the parts of their pictures.  (Paragraphs help a reader find the constituent parts of a picture quickly, and they help clear up ambiguous relationships.)

Put simply, paragraphs make comprehension quicker and easier.

Writer's Block Remedy

Start the writing process by capturing what you see in your head with words and sentences.  (This can be applied to stimuli that you see with your eyes too.)  Once you have found words that represent the pictures in your mind or the stimuli before your eyes, you can then go back to add stylistic features like an introduction or a conclusion.  Sometimes you will have to re-arrange your text.  But who cares? What matters is that the images you seek to share are captured in words and sentences. 

[Aside] We create words to represent some sensory stimuli--usually visual but also audible, emotional, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory--group of stimuli or collection of groups of stimuli.  Many words can represent a visual stimuli in one context and then an audible stimuli in another. Sentences function similarly to words; however, a picture often accompanies whatever sensory stimuli we set out to show, if we show it by writing a complete sentence.  The combination of subject and verb usually effects a picture.  Active verbs almost always effect a picture.  Ask yourself, what stimuli do I seek to capture here?  What is the best way to capture it? With a word? A sentence? A paragraph? Etc.

1.      What is your purpose for writing?

One big picture?  One big picture and some little pictures?  A bunch of little pictures?

2.      What pictures do you need to achieve this purpose?

When choosing pictures, it is important to consider the assumptions (the conclusions) that your reader already holds, so you can properly assess what you need to establish before you can reveal your picture.  This tenet is vital to the process of communication in general.

            What assumptions do my readers already hold?

How big is each picture in this list of pictures that I want to show?  Do some of these pictures belong to one of the other pictures that I have listed?  Is my picture concrete?  Is my picture abstract?

3.      What kind of progression do I need to achieve my purpose?

A chronological progression? A thematic progression? A spatial progression? A comparative progression?  A deductive progression? An inductive progression? Progression by concession? Progression by addition? Progression by repetition?  Progression by example? Progression by intensity?  Progression by option?  Progression by emphasis?  Progression by qualification?  Progression by visual spur? Progression from the general to the specific? Progression from the specific to the general? 

What picture are all of the pictures modifying?  Is this biggest picture worth viewing?  Does it have significance?  Or is it just a way to hold together all of the smaller pictures? (which, presumably, do have significance to your reader) How can I fold up my pictures? Or what picture can I unfold into them?

4.      How do I want to construct these pictures?

A simple sentence? A complex sentence? A compound sentence?  A compound complex sentence? A loose sentence?  A periodic sentence?  A combination of these?  Is the passive voice an effective way to show this picture?  Have I achieved rhythm with my sentences?  Should I mix in more phrases?  Do I want to jam a bunch of pictures into one sentence?  Do I want to spread them out over several sentences?  Do I want to spread one picture out over multiple sentences?  Do some of my pictures need multiple sentences to be captured representatively?

5.      How will I help my reader find my pictures?

How will he/she know that I have moved on to a new picture?  How will he/she know which pictures advance my purpose?  How will he/she know where each picture belongs?  How will he/she know where to put each picture?

Use paragraphs to make it easier for your reader to find your pictures and their various parts, but let words do all the pointing.

Inductive, Deductive and Circular Logic

Inductive Logic:

Observations:

X then Y

X then Y

X then Y

X then Y

X then Y

X then Y

X then Y

X then Y

X then Y

X then Y

Therefore:

Assumption: if X then Y (major premise)

In the above, the conclusion is proven by the afore-mentioned observations.  The observations—taken with the physical senses: sight, smell, sound, taste, touch—are the evidence.

Deductive Logic:

Assumption: if X then Y (major premise)

Observation: X (minor premise)

Conclusion: Y (conclusion)

From sensual observations, assumptions are created. Then from assumptions and observations conclusions are drawn.
                       
Senses--> Induction-->Deduction

Circular Logic:

No observed evidence exists to support the assumption.  Instead, an assumption is made with unobserved evidence.

Assumption: if A then B (major premise)

                        Observation: A (minor premise)
                        Conclusion: B (conclusion)
                                    Therefore:
                                                A then B
                                                        Therefore:
                                                              Assumption: if A then B (major premise)

No observed evidence exists to support the assumption: if A then B.  The only evidence that exists to support the assumption, if A then B, is the  unobserved evidence delineated above.  A then B was never observed.