>Data makes wild, un-evidenced leaps of assumption that are only "empirical" because we the audience understands what he's saying is correct. But in-universe hi

>Data makes wild, un-evidenced leaps of assumption that are only "empirical" because we the audience understands what he's saying is correct. But in-universe his ideas are ridiculous and unjustified. Same with Spock, he presents "logical" conclusions where the priors are not knowable from where he stands. Maybe it is just a popular caricature of logic, that if you are just not purely "emotional", then you are the opposite: logical. Don't tell people that Spock is not logical though. You'll get an emotional response.