To some degree.
Using abstractions.
And it is helpful for human brain. But the matter itself does not require your rationality.
Most human are irrational too and animals are.
They don't follow logic.
Logic is a spook.
it is very necessary if you work with abstractions.
But it is very limited at the same time.
You arrive at all these conclusions via magic?
Logic has limitations. They are great. they are spooky.
You don't see billions of people doing logical for them but limited things?
Every day
It depends. Are they using logic correctly, and are the premises sound?
It also depends. Logic used correctly, like in Hegel's case, is also a spook.
Hegel went so far away from reality people can't even understand his writings.
And the result of his writings is idealism, mistake and nonsense.
Hegel strayed too far from observations.
You are going billions of years from observations. Hegel did better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVdBnwm9Qqc
I no longer need cosmology. Aquinas has arguments that work with an eternal universe.
All time is relative.
Arguments again.
You can make observations about the past.
Most people can't make observations of present.
Which means...?
Their logic is a spook.
Their data is a spook too.
But they usualy persist.
Not sure of the reason for that.
I would argue that their methodology is flawed. Who am I to say why people ignore contrary results?
It is possible to show why people get things wrong.
Irrationality is demonstrable.
The world is not completely rational. They are irrational too as part of the world.
Of course.
But if you can get far with reason, why jump off?
Logical arguments are abstractions, yes. Logic is an abstract system. It is not 'wrong'. The premises, though, can be wrong, which makes the conclusions also wrong. But if the premises are accurate, the conclusions will also be accurate.
As observations improve, so do the abstract conclusions.
Always improving.
So why jump off?
>But if the premises are accurate, the conclusions will also be accurate
That is not true
