However, I have demonstrated that observation as an instrument is much more effective/rational than the illogical nature of systematic logic.
Quinn has given examples, which have been refuted by illustrating that simple whole observation reins supreme over the limited and distorted nature of a systematic logical framework.
Quinn’s example:
The problem with systematic logic is it is so hypothetical and divorced from living. I would never define a spaceship as a children’s tricycle because if I observe a children’s tricycle I would assign certain properties to it automatically by observing. And this is the same with a spaceship. These two objects would never be combined in daily life because I can simply observe the differences.If I were to define a spaceship as a children's tricycle, then I would naturally reach the conclusion, using logic, that space ships can never fly up into outer space.
The formula for systematic logic is something like this:
A has X as a property that I randomly assign, so therefore my conclusion is that B is true or not true.
This is the general formula, but observation can be replaced with the formula, you’re thinking doesn’t need to be restrained to a linear time-based formula.
For Instance:
Spaceships fly into space because I have observed spaceships fly into space therefore I can be quite certain that a function of spaceships is to fly into space.
there is only whole observation there, no systematic logical framework.
I only observe how something relates to something else, in this case it is how a spaceship relates to its environment. Note: no systematic logic needed.
Years ago, I took a systematic logic course in university and my professor and I were always butting heads because I simply wanted to observe phenomena, and he wanted to see everything through the filter of systematic logic.