What is a ‘cognitive process’? It is simply the way the mind of a human primate tends to work, or is believed to work. It typically combines inductive and deductive procedures. Currently, deductive processes are prioritized both in science and philosophy of science, hence the predominance of mathematics.
        I contend that intellectual discovery has, in the past,  been more inductive than deductive and that the inductive (the movement from the particular to the general) is more ‘natural’.       Deduction always requires preliminary assumptions to get started; such assumptions are usually either triggered by observation and personal experience as in the case of Archimedes and his overflowing bathwater, or by mystical revelation as in the case of Descartes in his boiler-room. The primary role of deduction is to draw non-obvious conclusions from innocuous-seeming assumptions — since it is often these conclusions that turn out to be the most important.
        Deduction is foolproof but, by and of itself, completely meaningless; induction is firmly rooted in the actual but too easily gives rise to error through hasty generalization. It is, however, foolish to downgrade, or even ban, imaginative ‘pattern-seeking’ — what Harari calls ‘stories’ — since, at the end of the day, it is precisely such insights, sudden glimpses of half-hidden patterns within phenomena, that have led to the most important discoveries. Newton’s celestial ‘action-at-a-distance’ was considered by most continental savants to be a totally illegitimate extrapolation from terrestrial mechanics and, if General Relativity is to be believed, they were essentially in the right. But this crude picture of large bodies projecting force across empty space proved, for two and a half centuries, to be extremely fruitful and it is hard to see its successor theory (GR) arising without universal attraction preceding it. 

        My own ‘cognitive  method’, inasmuch as I have one, goes something like this:  Determine and state your instinctive approach to the issue at hand, otherwise known as prejudice(s);

• Formulate a provisory initial generalization based on non-detailed familiarity with specific cases;
• Confront (2.) with more extensive data;
• Revise or demolish (2.) if necessary and restate;
• Apply (4.) to other cases to see if ‘it fits’;
• Conclusion.

    Take, for example, my own investigation into the role of the individual in history.

    For (1.) my instinctive approach was ‘vitalist’ as opposed to ‘objective-mechanist’ which, in the context of human history, gives the predominant role to economic forces’ ;
    For (2.) my ‘provisory generalization’ was that world-historical individuals were destined from birth for greatness.
    For (3.) I confronted (2.) with detailed examinations of eight famous personages, four male and four female, all of whom came from relatively modest backgrounds. (I made this stipulation in order to eliminate, or reduce, the importance of social advantages due to birth.) These eight persons were: Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin; the Empress Wu of China, the Empress Theodora of Byzantium, Joan of Arc and Eva Peròn.

    To my surprise, I found that there was very little solid evidence that any of these persons were ‘destined for greatness’ from an early age. On the contrary, the childhood and adolescence of Cromwell, Hitler, Napoleon, ditto other famous persons such as Abraham Lincoln or the Duke of Wellington, were totally unremarkable, even unpromising. Most world-historical figures only seem to have had clear intimations of their ‘mission’ when approaching middle age (e.g. Saint Paul, Mahomet, Lincoln, Hitler &c. &c.)  which does not sit well with the assumption that they were marked out by destiny from birth.
    There are, of course, plenty of reports of portents and prophecies relating to future emperors in Suetonius’s Lives of the Emperors but one suspects that many of these were rationalizations after the event. If the story is true, the prediction made by a passing fortune-teller when presented with Wu Chao as a toddler, namely that “If this child is a girl, she will rule the Empire” is very remarkable indeed, particularly since Wu Chao was the only Chinese woman ever to have ruled alone and even to have founded a (short-lived) dynasty. But there is no way we can authenticate this story today. 
    Thus, stage (4.), my initial assumption(s), had to be seriously revised in the light of more evidence. I did, however,  find some characteristics that were common to all the figures I investigated (see relevant article on this website) and certainly such persons’ eventual belief that they were propelled forward by trans-human forces was a key factor in their success. Likewise, farther research did, to my mind, confirm my instinctive feeling that certain individuals in the past really did have a tremendous effect on world history for good or bad, whether the underlying reasons for this were luck, fate, or good judgment. Only an Alexander the Great would have refused the offer from the Persian king Darius of territory, wealth and his daughter in marriage. Had Alexander been bought off in this way, it seems very unlikely that large parts of the world would ever have been Hellenized or that Egypt would have come under Greek control with all that this entailed (the famous Library, the scientific research &c. &c.)  Reputedly, Parmenion, Alexander’s leading general, said, “If I were Alexander, I would accept the offer” to which the latter replied, “So would I, if I were Parmenion”. Similarly, if there is a one sentence answer to the causes of World War II, or at least the crucial expansion of the war eastwards into Russia, the answer has to be, “Adolf Hitler”. For all the generals, the ordinary people and even high ranking Nazis were flabbergasted by the seemingly crazy, and militarily unnecessary, project of invading Russia, and with good reason. SH 01/09/2025