When narrowing uncertainties, deductive reasoning can be more
   helpful than inductive.

   I think in the application of deductive reasoning, however,
   parallel threads are important. I consider reasoning akin to
   navigating a maze.

   If one can follow several likes of deductive reasoning
   simultaneously - or split up the task, then elimination of
   improbabilities won't be necessary, as there will be some that
   navigate the more narrow, less likely passageways.

   The main line of deductive reasoning may well be correct in the
   end, but I think of criminal work or solving mysteries for
   example; as new facts enter into the case, very sophisticated
   lines of deductive reasoning may have to take a lower peg in the
   chain of priority, although still being followed. Sometimes
   rejecting the entire line of reasoning based on a single piece
   of evidence turns out to be hasty as well. It's why I believe in
   parallel threads.

   I don't believe in elimination of improbabilities entirely but
   rather lowering them in priority, for sometimes the improbable
   is simply missing a single datum.