It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by Woodcarver
Lets take it to extremes for an example, lets say theres a young lady and old man and a baby on an island, technically the best chance of survival would be the man and the woman, without a baby to worry about. but no one is going to let a baby die.
Logic would seem to be over rated ,especially when we have different ways of looking at things.
All we need to be incorrect is to have one false piece of information that is only a guess about, because of a theory we hold onto to be true
Contrary facts will be either ignored or twisted to maintain the theory...peace
logic is not going to help you solve the dilemma between Coke and Pepsi or Green and Blue. There simply is not way to clearly and logically choose.
Exactly my point. However, some people like to pretend that a logical mind is the gateway to intellectual salvation. I'm just saying that from the simple (colas and colors,) to the complex (moral exercises, or issues such as war v. peace) that there is still "simply no way to clearly and logically choose."
Any decision someone makes is going to inevitably consist of many factors including: emotion, bias, gut-feeling etc. Logical arguments are fine, but they're still woven with things such as emotion, bias, gut-feeling etc.
And tend to reject logical arguments with emotion, bias, gut-feeling etc.
edit on 13-4-2014 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
Ok lets consider your statement of sitting in your house right now .Basically you are making a correct statement but what if for some reason unknown to you ,you didn't really own it?
There are many things at play and although it could be argued that you do it could also be shown that you do not based on a law you are unaware of.
I can show you places on the earth where it could be considered to be flat but without knowing the full extent of the matter logic is slightly ambiguous.
I think we do agree a lot more then disagree :>) would that be true?