Beyond Logical Steps?

If this really did happen, it is because the test itself was flawed in finding out things that were wrong. Placing -weights- on chairs at their point of stability does not equal up to placing 500 lbs of weight on the chair in other areas. The pressure is not accurate so the test is flawed and if scientists could not figure this out, it's pretty stupid of them. Logic would say to go hire some 500 lb man to sit in them and move about, testing them out to see if they really can hold the person. Weights and a human body will not show the same results. So yes, this can -still- be reasoned out and approached. Just because some people may not have done the total work and sat and thought about it to come up with other options does not mean logic in this case could not be used. The point is that we all do not think of the same concepts at times and so it may take shorter for some people to deduce things and longer for others. How though would logic -not- work here other than to say no one came to the conclusion to hire some obese male or female to do the testing to make sure it was accurate and safe for them? Logic does work. It worked right here.

 

Of course we aren't able to control or fathom the number of possible variables that can contribute to anything like a product or experiment. I was simply framing things within the context of of PandW's statement- what works fine in a controlled environment doesn't always do the same in the real world. We do the best we can to control for how much weight something like a chair can hold. And infinite number of variables can effect how much weight a chair can hold in the real world. What if a heavy storm caused water damage? What if a worker fell asleep on the job? For all we know aliens could've come down and screwed with the product. some are more likely than others.

When we test products for certainty that they work, we accept a 95% chance of success. Referring to your chair example, that means if we test from a population of 100 chairs we run the risk of choosing 5 chairs that are working when in fact the rest of the 95 chairs do not work. We essentially have a 5% chance of making the error that all the chairs are of good quality when in fact they are not. Testing usually involves multiple assessments; if we've found that the chairs we sample are able to hold the required weight, we can assume that the next 5 chairs we pool and test will also be able to hold the required amount of weight, and so forth. If all the chairs in your example proved to be bunk there are two most likely reasons: 1) the company jumped the gun on a sample of working chairs from an overall population of flawed chairs (i.e. did one test and cleared all of the product-- which is something that happens with most drug tests performed and funded by drug companies) or 2) that the exact testing conditions were not administered to break the chair when it was broken outside of a lab. There's a very high chance that more was to blame for the flaw of so many chairs. We're only able to test for things we can readily prepare for, and we can't control every possible variable that may cause trouble with the product. If we knew everything we'd design products that wouldn't fail.

Logic is designed to fail certain arguments and propositions based on the information we're given. It is infallible so that it can contribute to itself. The more information we receive about something, the more we can use logical reasoning and inference to update our current knowledge about the world. You're searching for a more superior alternative to deduction, when as of now there isn't one. If we didn't need to deduce information from what we observe and make inferences about the world around us there'd be no need for logic or reasoning because we would know everything. Since we don't know everything the best we can do is use logic and deduction about the world around us.

Now granted, human beings are far from being 100% rational and logical. Our emotions and other flaws and ticks in our perceptions and cognitive processes result in obvious mistakes.

 

It does not seem too me that logic is perfect, everything has flaws, whether they are plans, thoughts or actions, logic would still abide to these natural laws. Whether being able to approve it or not is still not within my power. You can only have logic, if your mind is closed to only one answer.

 

Logic isn't designed to be perfect. If it were perfect we would be able to know everything and anything. Logic simply takes the current information that we have regarding an issue and provides a reasonable conclusion. It doesn't mean that you're set on that one conclusion. You don't make up your mind and then close all doors to other solutions. If we introduce new information we're able to change or revise our previous conclusion. If anything the intentions of logic are the most reasonable-- there's always the possibility of revising or changing based on the amount of information we're able to use or acquire.

Of course arguing pure logic will only have most of us going against it half the time. Pure logic often calls for things that humans simply can't accept. There are a number of reasons why we are more often than not able to reject some of the logical conclusions of our thoughts. Emotions for one cloud our judgments (try solving a problem when you're angry), as well as the limits of our ability to extract information and process it from the world around us.

 

My brain hurts......