Logic or Evidence

[julian64]

So often on PH you hear people say, if you believe something show me the evidence. I choose the word 'believe' here intentionally.
Pick any thread and you have people arguing the logic of a situation and then people who quote statistical evidence.

So the question is when you hear opposing statistics and logic, which to do naturally tend to favour. The result of the poll might help my next few arguments on PH .

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Statistics are like a lamppost for a drunken man...more for leaning on than illumination.

But, not all opinions are equal. If discussing the best way forward for cancer treatment, I'd go with the oncologist over the woman behind the counter in Greggs. Unfortunately we live in a world where we're told that all opinions are to be equally respected.

[gregs656]

The internal logic of a situation is fluid though isn't it, as it depends on what you consider to be valid statements.

Generally I find when people assert their argument is logical, realist, reasoned, scientific etc it is rarely any of those things. That's saying nothing of appeals to 'common sense' reasoning.

Statistics suffer from the similar problem as rarely to people look at the underlying evidence that has generated the stats. Bias can be introduced at every step of the way of producing statistics.

[grumbledoak]

Proof only exists in maths.

Evidence can be biased, intentionally or accidentally. Who do you trust?

[LordGrover]

Depends on the evidence... 'studies' based on epidemiology (for example) are typically unreliable yet at best they can show only correlation and not causation.

[Dixy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Statistics are like a lamppost for a drunken man...more for support than illumination.
.

FTFY

[julian64]

I was looking at the cycle helmet thread. (BTW this is for example and not to extend the cycling thread warriors over here)

It was interesting because the logic would suggest a head is always better protected with a helmet. However the evidence is not readily available to back this up in cycling.

Same is also true of helmet cameras. They shouldn't be put onto helmets logically because they interfere with helmets ability to do its job, but the statistics say that the detriment effect of a helmet camera in an accident has never been proven.

The threads will never end because the people arguing are using two complete different systems to come to a decision. Statisticians are not interested in a logical argument, and the logical are sceptical of statistics

[grumbledoak]

coyft said:

Some things are just obvious you don't need statistics to prove or disprove.

Really? Did boxing gloves make boxing safer or more dangerous?

[grumbledoak]

coyft said:

I bet they resulted in less broken hands/knuckles.

Probably more dangerous for those being hit, because you will get hit more often. `logic being you will sustain more punches as you won't get knocked out as easily. Your brain will be bouncing around in your skull more often.

Much more head injuries than bare knuckle boxing. But it's "safety innit" so we have gloves even though they seem to make things worse

[Jasandjules]

When it comes to evidence, we have to consider Cui Bono. When it comes to logic - well, which type of logic are you referring to?

[Type R Tom]

Anyone who deals with the public regularly will know that evidence can be irrelevant if someone "feels" there argument is valid.

Examples include cars speeding along a road means there must be accidents, producing evidence to counter usually gets shouted down closely followed by an emotional reply along the lines of "what happens if a child gets killed"

[daniel1920]

coyft said:

grumbledoak said:

Much more head injuries than bare knuckle boxing. But it's "safety innit" so we have gloves even though they seem to make things worse

Probably has more to do with money that safety. 15 rounds is a lot more marketable than a couple. Makes it a bit more palatable that the serious injuries aren't visible too.
Logic innit.

Nope, hitting someone in the head breaks fingers and knuckles, gloves made very cozy to give someone a concussion.

For me, if there is no way to statically prove something then its time to try and use logic, but logic is flawed, a common example;
In a room of just 23 people there's a 50-50 chance of at least two people having the same birthday. In a room of 75 there's a 99.9%.

Logically this is total bullst even now after I have seen mathematical proof, but it's true...

[Baldchap]

You only have to look at flat earth and anti Vax to realise that people will believe whatever they want, regardless of what information is available or what they can see with their own eyes.

[amusingduck]

I'd say Evidence without Logic is worth less than Logic without Evidence, so I'd pick Logic if I could only choose one.

Evidence without logic gives you this


Logic without Evidence gives you the Flat Earth

Tricky one, I think I'd still side with "logic"

[LordGrover]

^^ Correlation <> Causation.

[GroundEffect]

Logic is NOT Rationality.

[amusingduck]

GroundEffect said:

Logic is NOT Rationality.

What would you say is the distinction?

[captain_cynic]

julian64 said:

So often on PH you hear people say, if you believe something show me the evidence. I choose the word 'believe' here intentionally.
Pick any thread and you have people arguing the logic of a situation and then people who quote statistical evidence.

So the question is when you hear opposing statistics and logic, which to do naturally tend to favour. The result of the poll might help my next few arguments on PH .

I think you've (or they've) misunderstood the meaning of the word belief. A belief is something you accept to be true without evidence or hold as an opinion. Both don't require evidence or logical reasoning.

However your point stands beyond minor pedantry, people will naturally ask for evidence or at least logical conjecture when someone puts forward an assertion as fact. When you make statements like "England is rubbish at ice hockey"* you've stated an opinion that can be proved or disproved with evidence. Opinions on the other hand don't require evidence, but are not assertions of fact "I think England is rubbish at ice hockey" for example, is an opinion.

• I am making no statements or opinions about the quality of English teams in the sport of Ice Hockey.

[Cantaloupe]

That black people are more prone to mental illness is a fact, but regardless whether
this is explained by evidence or logic, it's seemingly racist to point it out.

[PAULJ5555]

The Labour Party tried to sell off the NHS.