How reliable is a "Logic / Objectivity" Bias when it comes to reasoning? Or, What are the potential limitations or vulnerabilities of relying solely on these bases of reasoning?
Note 1: "Objectivity" and "Logic" are sometimes used interchangeably. But, I am speaking to the strength of "Objectivity" - not Logic, nor symbolic logic.
However, it seems that along with other forms of reasoning - people often proclaim a Objectivity Bias, rather than other standards of reasoning: tradition, science, empiricism [different from science], pathos, ethos, Logos, (in the "Intrinsic Pattern" sense of Heraclitus), equanimity, wisdom, divine revelation, etc.
Note 2: Some of those standards may appear "objective" - but are they really? In view of time, exhaustive knowledge, etc?
What are the limitations and vulnerabilities of "Objectivity" when it comes to validating reasoning?
Objectively, A particular social practice has historically led to the betterment of a society, in general. However, my heart is torn and I feel that the practice is immoral - because its benefits are at the expense of others. So, I will choose to go with my 'heart' in this case - despite the objective facts set out in this case.
- Potential Limitation? Are there types of "Truth" that "Objectivity" could not validate? Other Limitations?
- Potential Vulnerability? Are Objective Proofs susceptible to "Divergent Thinking"? Other vulnerabilities?
Specific Examples where Objectivity was appropriately set aside for other forms of reasoning would sufficiently answer the question.