Logic is hollow until we add references to reality. That is what physics is. It's filling variables with real data. Without data, mathematics is completely holl

Logic is hollow until we add references to reality. That is what physics is. It's filling variables with real data. Without data, mathematics is completely hollow. Skip this step, and it's all constrained fiction, but fiction nevertheless. Comparatively speaking, English is an extremely logical language and it does enforce a level of active reasoning on the speaker[0]. Combined with the emphasis on individuality and the value of self, both being highly western values, we have ample examples of what John calls the bastardization of reason and aggressive common sense. It's everywhere... politics, pseudo-science, non-science, and even simple everyday conversations are full of reasons that actually are immaterial, which makes them illusionary, but that are encouraged by the culture and the language we use to express ourselves. Worse yet, feeding off our obsession and trust of science (and in many cases celebrity), communicators repeatedly abuse reason to accomplish their motives, be it commercial or personal. Donald Trump exemplifies the bastardization of reason and aggressive common sense. He's betting his campaign on it, and it's working because these observations of western culture are true. Beyond that point, regarding "6 qualities" John is easier to challenge on the merits. But if one subscribes to scientific models instead of axioms [1], then it is but another model which is worth analysis and pursuing for all of it's bases and applications. In terms of the physics of this, the other elements (common sense, creativity, ethics, intuition, memory) would be the input (hopefully evidence but not to be confused) and reasoning would be the logic (hopefully mathematically accurate but not to be without checks and balances). Anecdotally, as evidence of hollow reasons there is the excuse. We are all trained to make good excuses growing up, but what are they really? They are simple statements used to shift blame, and are backed first and foremost by a motive (not science). Hence the smarter we are the more excuses we can generate, and the better they will be. Most of them may even be true. But the point is, given the circumstances and our intelligence, we can pretty much reason ourselves and others to think anything when trusted. When we start twisting the facts and deceiving even ourselves, we have confabulation, and this too is a real and serious problem [2]. -- [0] Wish I had a quick reference, but by being the Lingua Franca of science English has been pushed to be easier to reason with. Japanese for example, does not have plurals and no subject-object distinction. It is harder to do math and science when the language doesn't care how many or what is objective. [1] "The semantic view of theories, which identifies scientific theories with models rather than propositions, has replaced the received view as the dominant position in theory formulation in the philosophy of science." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#About_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#About_theori... ) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation