Thread: Do you prefer logic or evidence?

1. Originally Posted by INTP
also saying things like this "6) I'll find out the condition of this device after pressing the start button." tries to make a logical statement from evidence, but fails. You see the only evidence is that device doesent start from pushing the button, making a conclusions that its about the condition of the device is trying to make a logical conclusions from the evidence. In reality, it might be that you didnt push the button properly, forgot to push some other button before that or whatever. You see making a conclusion that is truly logical, you need to eliminate all other possibilities.
I should have written "6) I'll find out something about this device after pressing the button" or something to that effect
Just like a properly executed logical system has a hierarchy of statements (you don't get far by atomic statements like "if A, then B") a proper evidence-based inquiry has a series of steps to find out the truth..

2. Originally Posted by Santtu
I should have written "6) I'll find out something about this device after pressing the button" or something to that effect
Just like a properly executed logical system has a hierarchy of statements (you don't get far by atomic statements like "if A, then B") a proper evidence-based inquiry has a series of steps to find out the truth..
but there is again an logical conclusion, not just evidence. pure evidence is just "i pressed a button and nothing apparent happened". also evidence doesent provide you with the truth, it just provides you with perception, which may or may not represent the underlying truth of thing(but that again requires some logic)

3. Originally Posted by En Gallop
By the way, I hope this isn't a Te vs. Ti thread lol. The kind of structured logic that came up earlier is more Te than Ti, actually. Ti (in an ITP) is much more fluid and flexible than that kind of rigid thinking.
TBH if there's any function that's based on evidence, it's Sensing in general.

4. Originally Posted by INTP
but there is again an logical conclusion, not just evidence. pure evidence is just "i pressed a button and nothing apparent happened". also evidence doesent provide you with the truth, it just provides you with perception, which may or may not represent the underlying truth of thing(but that again requires some logic)

You are relying only on what is given, not thinking deeper into the scenario. If a button doesn't work when it should, evidence is not simply "the button doesn't work". Evidence is the button does not work because the switch mechanism broke because it was made from a metal rated at 15 ohms in a 20 amp system because whoever installed this button did not have enough foresight to think about this. Logic is uncovering or reasoning each facet, evidence are the facets to be uncovered. Evidence is always as great or greater than what logic can ascribe.

Edit: Logic would be "the switch controlling the connection is broken, if I replace this part the system will work again". However, it will only be truly evidenced once the operation is complete and proves the system functional, bringing my thoughts on evidence being on par or greater with logic full circle yet again.

5. Originally Posted by jontherobot
You are relying only on what is given, not thinking deeper into the scenario. If a button doesn't work when it should, evidence is not simply "the button doesn't work". Evidence is the button does not work because the switch mechanism broke because it was made from a metal rated at 15 ohms in a 20 amp system because whoever installed this button did not have enough foresight to think about this. Logic is uncovering or reasoning each facet, evidence are the facets to be uncovered. Evidence is always as great or greater than what logic can ascribe.

Edit: Logic would be "the switch controlling the connection is broken, if I replace this part the system will work again". However, it will only be truly evidenced once the operation is complete and proves the system functional, bringing my thoughts on evidence being on par or greater with logic full circle yet again.
the fact that you are making a conclusion that its the switch mechanism is broken or something like that(if you are not actually proving that to be the case), you are making an conclusion that is based on logic, not evidence. evidence only tells you that nothing apparent happened when you pushed the button.

6. Originally Posted by INTP
the fact that you are making a conclusion that its the switch mechanism is broken or something like that(if you are not actually proving that to be the case), you are making an conclusion that is based on logic, not evidence. evidence only tells you that nothing apparent happened when you pushed the button.
Right, but there are methods of testing switches, it is not mere logic we can deduce a falty switch being the cause.

If I look at a fuse, and the metal bridge is burnt and no longer connecting, it is not logic. If I notice the vehicle was struck by lightning, say the antenna is melted, I can logically conclude lightning caused this burnt fuse.

However, it is not necessarily the correct answer simply because they correlate. I've seen many technicians of all forms become baffled over problems because of leaps of logic they took without careful consideration of evidence, it is the true mark of a skilled individual over one who simply memorizes patterns in technique and logic.

Originally Posted by decrescendo
Logic. It goes without saying that "evidence" isn't always reliable. Examples intended to support a theory are often chosen without giving thought to ALL potential implications of the theory--what worked in situation A might not be true in situation B--and all possible interpretations of what the link between the theory and example means. Causation vs. correlation and stuff.

Anyway I'm just skeptical of evidence because I've been scarred by the idiotic abuse of it by people with extremely weak grasps of logic.

So why is evidence the bad guy here? Isn't logic at fault?

In your situation, it will be evidence that deduces the variances between situation A and situation B, not logic. Evidence is the superhero that counters faulty logic, presuming you possess enough to do so...

Also, good thread, @Santtu.

7. Originally Posted by jontherobot
Right, but there are methods of testing switches, it is not mere logic we can deduce a falty switch being the cause.

If I look at a fuse, and the metal bridge is burnt and no longer connecting, it is not logic. If I notice the vehicle was struck by lightning, say the antenna is melted, I can logically conclude lightning caused this burnt fuse.

However, it is not necessarily the correct answer simply because they correlate. I've seen many technicians of all forms become baffled over problems because of leaps of logic they took without careful consideration of evidence, it is the true mark of a skilled individual over one who simply memorizes patterns in technique and logic.
"if you are not actually proving that to be the case"

8. Originally Posted by jontherobot
So why is evidence the bad guy here? Isn't logic at fault?

In your situation, it will be evidence that deduces the variances between situation A and situation B, not logic. Evidence is the superhero that counters faulty logic, presuming you possess enough to do so...
Evidence isn't the bad guy. Poor logic is at fault, but I still value sound logic over evidence. Ideally, a sound logical theory will be supported by ample evidence -- I agree with you that it's crucial, just less so than the concept.

Evidence only counters faulty logic when the logical context is clear. Exhibit A can signify any number of things (e.g. Emilia's handkerchief in Othello), but it's logic that clarifies which. That's not a great example because the play has omniscient narration (assumed to be trustworthy) so logic isn't really necessary. But yeah. Sometimes the significance of evidence is so obvious that it alone will suffice, but I would think that in most cases, extra thought is needed.

edit: also, in your switch situation, I still think you make a logical leap based on past experiences, even if it's not conscious. that might be a stretch, though.

Also, good thread, @Santtu.
I agree!

9. I prefer evidence. Logic tends to be kind of boring to me. I use it to explain things to others because I have to.

10. Originally Posted by decrescendo
Evidence isn't the bad guy. Poor logic is at fault, but I still value sound logic over evidence. Ideally, a sound logical theory will be supported by ample evidence -- I agree with you that it's crucial, just less so than the concept.

Evidence only counters faulty logic when the logical context is clear. Exhibit A can signify any number of things (e.g. Emilia's handkerchief in Othello), but it's logic that clarifies which. That's not a great example because the play has omniscient narration (assumed to be trustworthy) so logic isn't really necessary. But yeah. Sometimes the significance of evidence is so obvious that it alone will suffice, but I would think that in most cases, extra thought is needed.

edit: also, in your switch situation, I still think you make a logical leap based on past experiences, even if it's not conscious. that might be a stretch, though.

Sound logic... it really should be an oxymoron. If science can teach anyone anything it's that theory is just that, and will likely be overturned in light of new evidence during the next generation of scientific study.

I can't see past the fact that evidence is always always always as or more pure than logic. It's like choosing human knowledge over omniscience.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•