Do you prefer logic or evidence?

[Ghost of the dead horse]

1) Logically, the school should start the same time this monday as it started the last week
2) The time for monday's lessons will be found in the schedule
3) Logically, the person who invited me for a beer will provide all the beer we need
4) I'll find out if I need to bring my own beer by asking the person who invited me
5) Logically, the device should work when the start button is pressed
6) I'll find out the condition of this device after pressing the start button.
7) Logically, my spouse should be happy after coming home from whatever happy things (s)he did today.
8) I'll hear how my spouse's day turned out after (s)he comes home.

Do you agree more with the odd-numbered statements or even-numbered statements? This wasn't supposed to be a trick question or anything like that. I'm just saying that from my experience, I see people who claim to be "logical" as just like that. Agreeing with the odd-numbered statements and not with the even-numbered. What more is there to it?

 

[En Gallop]

I prefer logic, but the "logical" statements you provide aren't very logical lol. To see logic you need to show it working. Logic has REASONS why a is more probable than b. It doesn't just blurt it out like that lol.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I must admit, the "logical" statements I made are just mockingly so. But.. that's the only use of the concept I've heard lately. Personally, I've found out that logic works but I'm keeping quiet about it, considering what's the reputation of "logic" or what passes for it. I rather advertise evidence.

Apart from appearances, I find out that evidence can only be reasonably studied in a logical system, and vice versa.

 

[Cellmold]

I ended up trying to type 3-4 separate posts to get my thoughts across. But in the end I opted for a glib:

Do evidence and logic often run counter to each other? Science is in for a big shock if so.... But I do somewhat sympathise with your position. There are a lot of people I know who refuse to trust the logical principals in a context until they have seen the evidence that proves it.

On the other hand....relying too much on assumption carries it's risks as well. There are less inherent principals than we realise.

I tend to enjoy those logic questions that are phrased something along the lines of:

All fat men are called brian.

You see a fat man walking towards you.

Is he called brian?

Logically the rule being set out as all fat men are brian means that it logically follows that all fat men would be called brian, because of the word 'all'. However we know from our 'evidential' human experience outside of purely logical principals that such a statement is of course incorrect, which is why pure logic always finds itself dumb-founded when applied to people.

However being a feeler, perhaps I just don't get logic?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Well.. I enjoy logical statements that are set up just like that, and I find them easy to follow, too. Rules of the question state A, now assuming A and B, and clause C, give the correct answer? That's all fun to me. In my mind, logic is infallible. Yet I feel the infallible logic is rarely applicable to anything. I feel that there's a continuum of clauses that adhere more or less to strict logic and more or less to evidence, and these clauses are more or less infallible.

Trade a little infallibility away, you get applicability. Trade a little applicability away, you get infallibility. That's how I see it.

Edit: then there's a class of statements I see more or less as failures. These are statements that are set up like a mathematical formula, but the concepts that those statements are relying on are not well-defined in the language used to state the logical "conclusion". Yet, many people (and too many people in my mind) appreriate statements that are set up like a something logical, but are nothing like that.

Short test: does a sentence feel more logical to you if you insert words from this list: "conclude, therefore, logically, if, and, not, then" ? Does a sentence feel more evidence-based to you if it includes words from this list: "studied, scientific, found out, know, tested" ?

 

[En Gallop]

I must admit, the "logical" statements I made are just mockingly so. But.. that's the only use of the concept I've heard lately. Personally, I've found out that logic works but I'm keeping quiet about it, considering what's the reputation of "logic" or what passes for it. I rather advertise evidence.

Apart from appearances, I find out that evidence can only be reasonably studied in a logical system, and vice versa.

I don't even know how it mocks logic when it basically has nothing to do with it lol. Mock logic would be something like:

All octopuses are purple
Barry is an octopus
Therefore, Barry is purple

Without logically thinking about things, there would be no ideas to test. Without logic, you would not understand what your "evidence" meant - you'd just have a list of numbers/measurements.

Anybody who goes too far either way will be irrational - you need both logic and evidence to come to right conclusions.

 

[cafe]

I like logic, but logic only works as well as the information you are logicing with.

 

[Cellmold]

Well.. I enjoy logical statements that are set up just like that, and I find them easy to follow, too. Rules of the question state A, now assuming A and B, and clause C, give the correct answer? That's all fun to me. In my mind, logic is infallible. Yet I feel the infallible logic is rarely applicable to anything. I feel that there's a continuum of clauses that adhere more or less to strict logic and more or less to evidence, and these clauses are more or less infallible.

Trade a little infallibility away, you get applicability. Trade a little applicability away, you get infallibility. That's how I see it.

That's interesting, it's also something I wonder that...well quite often I could imagine someone's logic being infallible by the rules of logic, but being wrong by other....less logical criteria.

For example that question about being invited for a beer, of course if someone invites you for a beer it is quite logical, (HAH), to assume they would provide all the beer since they havn't set out any other parameters that would lead you to believe otherwise. But...most rules of social conduct, (Fe stuff), would point out that it is polite to enquire about whether or not you are expected to bring beer, despite the other person not implying otherwise.

Personally I find that sort of thing annoying, such as when my mother used to ask me if I would like to hoover a room. I would reply 'no thank you I wouldn't like that' and get an indignant response. Because of course what she REALLY meant was 'hoover this room' but social conduct rules dictated that it was rude to demand this too directly. Which then makes me wonder whether she was trying to be polite, or trying to make her demand sound like a reasonable request, rather than the direct order it was.

In both examples I don't think there was much logic either way.

 

[mintleaf]

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.

 

[greenfairy]

I prefer logic, but the "logical" statements you provide aren't very logical lol. To see logic you need to show it working. Logic has REASONS why a is more probable than b. It doesn't just blurt it out like that lol.

this

I prefer logic because it gives me a method which works with any quantity and quality of evidence. But I prefer the even numbered statements because I prefer to not make assumptions.

 

[WALMART]

Evidence is what logic works with. Evidence will always be greater, because it is the tangible existence logic attempts to explain. Logic is construed by tainted minds and limited evidence. Evidence just is, man.


PS my Se thrives on the unexplained. Evidence ftw.

 

[Coriolis]

Evidence is what logic works with. Evidence will always be greater, because it is the tangible existence logic attempts to explain. Logic is construed by tainted minds and limited evidence. Evidence just is, man.

Yes. Without sound evidence, logic is like the computer program that faithfully produces garbage out for garbage in. Ideally one has both evidence and logic, but one must start with evidence.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I myself first create a construction by the liberating power of reason (not logic; too rule-oriented), and then seek to back it up with external information and how it can shape the world.

 

[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.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I don't follow the functions as a religious ritual, and if we use the right reasoning, then we shouldn't have to follow irrational religious rituals.

 

[INSTJ]

I can't give an answer to this question, since I believe that logic and evidence go together. In order to make a logical deduction, don't you need to consider some kind of evidence to get you to your conclusion? Thanks for the trick question!

 

[INTP]

I prefer logic, but the "logical" statements you provide aren't very logical lol. To see logic you need to show it working. Logic has REASONS why a is more probable than b. It doesn't just blurt it out like that lol.

this

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.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I prefer logic, but the "logical" statements you provide aren't very logical lol. To see logic you need to show it working. Logic has REASONS why a is more probable than b. It doesn't just blurt it out like that lol.

this

If so, why do so many people claim they're applying logic by using statements like the ones in OP?

 

[Cellmold]

If so, why do so many people claim they're applying logic by using statements like the ones in OP?

That shouldn't be a hard question to answer, there is a lot of weight placed on appearing logical and therefore in the right when it comes to the everyday lives of people. Even though there are plenty of irrational loudmouths in general society, you might be surprised how often you would hear someone completely off the rails emotionally, claim they are being logical.

This tends to happen more with men than women since men are conditioned by many cultures into being told they are the more logical gender, despite evidence to the contrary. It could easily seem to a Thinking type that most of the world runs on an unfair bias favouring emotionality and likability over sound logic, but ÃŽ find that even with the lowest common denominator, there is an emphasis on being seen as logical and therefore making more sense even if the individual never demonstrates anything of the sort. The internet is another good example where, removed from the pressures of physical immediacy, careful examination of the content of peoples posts becomes more important than interpersonal skills at reading their emotions.

This could be put down to there being more thinkers, especially NT's, online, but I find even those not of that variety will attempt to appear more logical. Although this seems to be changing with the more accessible nature of modern internet.
It may also be that the online culture was first developed by thinkers in general to begin with.

 

[Ginkgo]

The odd numbered "analysis" are non sequiturs, while the even numbered statements are just that... statements. The even numbered ones don't illustrate any sort of inferences or conclusions. Perhaps this is why the odd numbered sentences would be considered "logical" - they include some sort of explanation based off of horse-sense. They seem reasonable insofar as they are expediently practical, given an amount of "common knowledge". However, a strictly logical person would consider this implicit common knowledge to be presumptuous at worst and omitted at best.