Final answer:
The belief in a consistent idea about communication despite contrary evidence reflects authority as a way of knowing. This stands in contrast to intuition, deduction, or induction, which involve different methods of forming beliefs.
Step-by-step explanation:
If a person has a consistent belief about how communication works, based on something they were previously taught or discovered, and persists in reaching answers consistent with this belief regardless of other evidence, this would reflect authority as a way of knowing. This is because the person is relying on a trusted source or prior knowledge as the basis for their understanding, rather than re-evaluating their beliefs in light of new evidence. In contrast, other ways of knowing, such as intuition, deduction, or induction, would either involve a more immediate 'gut-feeling' (intuition), a logical process from general rules to specific cases (deduction), or building general rules from specific observations (induction).
It's important to recognize that while deductive reasoning can guarantee the truth of conclusions given true premises, many times the premises themselves are known inductively, and thus are not guaranteed to be true. Inductive reasoning, another form of logical thinking, uses related observations to arrive at a general conclusion. This is a process that can be reliable but is not infallible, as conclusions drawn from induction are only probable.
Therefore, holding onto a belief about communication solely based on authority could overlook other forms of reasoning that might offer a more accurate understanding when new evidence is considered. As mentioned in the review questions, inductive reasoning is a common source of beliefs, even though it is only probable when done well.