*nod* It was a test of logic, which is one extremely useful tool in making real-world decisions, not a general test of real-world decisionmaking. I'd say you've pointed out a limit of the problem-domain of the test, not a flaw in the test. (But it is an important limitation, yes.)
And while logic isn't the be-all and end-all of intelligent thought, in general IF the initial data are correct, then the logical conclusions one can draw from those data are usually the right way to bet.
More importantly, logic is really useful for detecting blatant bullshit, rhetoric that attempts to distract or deceive, and a lot of mistakes. So I'm not claiming that Logic Is Everything, only that formal logic is extremely useful.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Just because a thing is logical doesn't imply it's right, correct, or accurate.
(no subject)
And while logic isn't the be-all and end-all of intelligent thought, in general IF the initial data are correct, then the logical conclusions one can draw from those data are usually the right way to bet.
More importantly, logic is really useful for detecting blatant bullshit, rhetoric that attempts to distract or deceive, and a lot of mistakes. So I'm not claiming that Logic Is Everything, only that formal logic is extremely useful.