What is stronger

hmmm...logic I guess.....
Evidence would suggest I would have to believe my own eyes when David Copperfield makes an elephant vanish into thin air....
So I stick with logic

imab99 wrote: hmmm...logic I guess.....
Evidence would suggest I would have to believe my own eyes when David Copperfield makes an elephant vanish into thin air....
So I stick with logic

me to

But the elephant has disappeared. You can (not) see it for yourself.

Logic doesn't deny this, it just forms your hypothesis of how it disappeared.

Your logic might make you say "It's magic", but saying something doesn't make it so. Your logic may also make you say "it was pirates" or "my glasses are broken", or even "fat git ate it". The only way to verify your logic is with evidence. In this case, you need to test different ways to make an elephant disappear, and after you've tried it, have a look and see if you can still see the elephant. If you can, your logic is wrong.

Only when the logic - your hypothesis - is supported by the evidence are either the logic or the evidence worth anything at all. So, you need both.

And in the particular case of the elephant, of course, he must have had really big hands, and palmed the elephant like the rest of us do with coins.

Evidence is stronger, since it validates the fact! Like me making money with an certain affiliate campaign for instance, I know that I'm doing well financially since the evidence show that I'm earning more after integrating an offerwall tool in my app...

But that's just me of course. I rely more on what is tangible...

BouldRake wrote: But the elephant has disappeared. You can (not) see it for yourself.

Logic doesn't deny this, it just forms your hypothesis of how it disappeared.

Your logic might make you say "It's magic", but saying something doesn't make it so. Your logic may also make you say "it was pirates" or "my glasses are broken", or even "fat git ate it". The only way to verify your logic is with evidence. In this case, you need to test different ways to make an elephant disappear, and after you've tried it, have a look and see if you can still see the elephant. If you can, your logic is wrong.

Only when the logic - your hypothesis - is supported by the evidence are either the logic or the evidence worth anything at all. So, you need both.

And in the particular case of the elephant, of course, he must have had really big hands, and palmed the elephant like the rest of us do with coins.

Hahahahaaa cool

I felt from the start that it was difficult to choose between evidence and logic but in the end I thought that all too often one cannot believe one's eyes and that helped

Fully agree as to needing both (given the chance to). But I take 'evidence' as something which depends on my human senses and as such quite unreliable, while 'logic' bears an aura of the undeniable, like maths or so...

And actually.... I'm not sure what he did with the damn elephant, I'll have to check it online...my next task I suppose, now that I have no safe (and logic Walmart tasks)

This subject is to hard to answer
Logic.......... in reality is SUBJECTIVE LOGIC ,each person have different logic
Evidence......same as logic it is to SUBJECTIVE ,manipulated by persons logic
In short I do not have answer here

Both are the weakest if not in sync. They can't be against each other but have to be in sync. Simple theory...........

A concrete Evidence has to be backed by a logical explanation. A logic without an Evidence is no logic. Hope i make sense here