Logic vs Evidence

[dimaniac]

Can these things potentially contradict each other?

[Cato]

A logically valid argument can be unsound because there isn't enough evidence to support one or more premises.

If you are sincerely interested I recommend this article about evidence.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

[Brian37]

UGGGGGGGGGGGG!

Mental masturbation does not replace a lab, testing and falsification with control groups and independent peer review.


You minimize personal bias, and filter out selection bias and sample rate error by doing thee above.

[Cyberman]

If the evidence contradicts previously cherished logical conclusions, especially faulty ones, sure.

For a long time it was argued that the Sun must be very young because it would be impossible for a fire that size to keep burning for millions of years. Then we learned that it's not actually burning. Evidence 1, logical conclusion 0.

[Whateverist]

Logical inference is only as good as the premises you start with. Logical inference applied to premises for which evidence is sufficient carries a lot of weight. Logical inference for ungrounded assumption almost guarantees garbage out. So no, logic never over rules evidence.

[DeistPaladin]

Can these things potentially contradict each other?

Purely logical conjecture without evidence to support it is the weakest form of "evidence" if it can even be counted as evidence at all.

It's a truism that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This is in fact the rule we operate by in every other area of our discourse outside of our favorite pet beliefs, such as religion, but could also include conspiracy theories or other crackpottery.

The example I like to use is the difference between me saying "I had lunch with my wife yesterday," to "I had lunch with president Obama yesterday" and "I had lunch with my dead father yesterday and his cremated body has reconstituted itself and he's feeling much better now." What standard of evidence would be needed for each of these three claims?

This is why apologetics "pre-fails" or fails before we even examine the arguments. All they offer are hypotheticals, conjecture and thought experiments. "Blah blah blah therefore Jesus". Once all the reverberations from the noise the generate subsides, we are still left with not a shred of evidence to back their extraordinary claims. There's almost no need to even cross-examine their logic and point out the fallacies (although that can be fun) since the pitiful or non-existent evidence fails to meet the burden of proof established by the extraordinary nature of their claims.

There's a difference between making an argument and presenting evidence.

[genkaus]

Logical inference is only as good as the premises you start with. Logical inference applied to premises for which evidence is sufficient carries a lot of weight. Logical inference for ungrounded assumption almost guarantees garbage out. So no, logic never over rules evidence.

Except when it comes to determining the validity of evidence.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Logically one would provide evidence if the aim was to convince people to accept & support your claims.

[jgnat]

There's poor logic and evidence has different value depending on source. How reliable for instance is written historical accounts?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There's poor logic and evidence has different value depending on source. How reliable for instance is written historical accounts?

Depends on the context and the corroborating/contradictory source material of that context, be it primary or secondary evidence.

Eg (as a cheap shot) the global flood. Bracketing out the impossibility of it, there is no geological data to suggest it ever happened, leaving only the bible as the source for that christian variant of a probably more accurate localized flood of ancient times.