lean said:
leaning toward a divergent viewpoint would be a bias which is likely to lead to mistakes . i.e. not particularly sound "reasoning". at least you aren't totally blind to it which is a small plus.
i think what you refer to as hunches is often just inductive reasoning. in other words, many specific cases are used to develop general rules. it can lead to mistakes but this sky cleanliness debate isn't really one of them. you demand a more deductive approach but unfortunately it isn't an option. it's actually the wrong tool for the job. to simplify it further, clinic regulars have seen enough doping cases, behaviors, cover-ups, etc to be able to develop a few somewhat reliable guidelines. it isn't a perfect system but it is by no means the absence of reason, quite the opposite actually.
I've had this discussion with Tinman, before. Unusually for a lawyer, I have a mathematical, scientific, rather than liberal arts, rhetorical mind...I appreciate those two approaches are not the be all end all, but I have found an algebric approach to logic the most accurate, and the hypothesis, test, verify model is pretty much gold standard to me.
To my mind, useful inductive reasoning requires either a lack of bias, oe a proven ability to overcome it. Neither are on display much here, though some posters, (e.g. hitch, dr maserati, dear wiggo when he keeps his temper, and the gold standard, LS) are laudible in their attempts to try. Otherwise we fall into sherlocks trap re theories and facts.