So are ad hominems a sign of the strongly logical?
I'm assuming from the tone of your post that your argument is because of my "weak logic" I am incapable of understanding logic. It seems more like a personal attack than a logical claim.
I didn't form my post as an "argument", it was intended more as guidance. I'm also sorry for being condescending.
Truly logical cases take long to construct. The applicability to real world might be weak. The reason lies in the difference of the object's essence and it's definition. This difference - or error, if you will - can be avoided in strictly abstractly constructed systems, like in prepositional logic and set theory, but it's essentially unavoidable in non-constructed systems whose details we are not completely aware of, like humans. The same applies to constructed concrete objects, to some extent.
The error also comes in simplified statements, like that "cars are powered by engines and steered with a steering wheel". As it is, the statement doesn't seem TOO bad. But juggle it a bit, analyze, tear it apart, connect it with others - and you end up with absurdities. The error between the stated and the reality becomes more pronounced the more phases you add to the logical construction.
A statement pertaining to real world is most likely anthropocentric, colored and tinted according to our culture. It's a great error to take such statements as premises to some logical system we expect to be faultless. Sure, the logic can be applied, but the errors are inevitable. We can do all the logical work perfectly, but the logic won't do much good for us there. It's completely acceptable to logical rules for cars to fly and cows to speak, unless otherwise defined. Sadly, there's so much to be defined as to make strict logic virtually unusable in the real world. It does a great deal of good in computer science, though.
So, the inerrant nature of the logic is lost when the premises differ from the objects it describes, and the errors in such scenarios become more pronounced the more we handle the data. This doesn't happen with precisely defined concepts of symbolic nature, but it does with fuzzy concepts. Moreover, we need a great database of human situations to give food for the logical method to arrive at any real world conclusion. Such method would be best described as folk logic, or something other than mathematical logic in the least.
The usual logic experts use in their respective fields is applied logic. It involves fact-checking and reasonability checks in every phase. This requirement of reasonability makes the logic not strict, as absurd results are invalidated with ad hoc counterarguments. This fits the human situations better, but it depends strongly on human execution, and as you very well put it, Kiddo - it's just as good as the person doing it.
But that's some humanized form of logic. The mathematically defined logic, like prepositional logic, or some close relatives - set theory, computability, arithmetics - can be inerrant. So, perhaps you were right in the other thread that we should define the concepts we are talking about Sorry for any personal attacks again. It's been a hell of a day.
ENFPs tend to be emotive in person and it's very difficult to be emotive when you're typing. I know I'm not very good at it. I tend to go a bit over the top at times (or I deliberately hold myself back, becoming very, very dry).
I've got a same kind of issue. I fool around in the RL and find it impossible to enjoy being silly, funny and social while typing, so I go for the other thing I want - being technical, analytical and serious.