Is it Better to be Factually Correct or Logically Accurate?


I think this could be an interesting discussion for everyone as there’s evidence here throughout on both sides of the argument where someone’s logic bites them in the ass because they didn’t have correct data or someone had the correct data but didn’t make a lick of sense. I think this makes the answer:

Both are important!

A sound argument requires correct facts in rational form.

But, I think in the long run, it pays to be logical. You don’t have to be the most knowledgeable person to find flaws in concepts or put together factual knowns to extrapolate verity. This is actually assisted by Intuition in my mind.

But is intuition enough to make a sound argument? It may be enough to be right. But not enough to make sense.


I agree.
I wanna rephrase this title to:
is it better to be book smart or is it better to have critical thinking skills?

as you said, both are very important and should be used together, because

I think I would switch the right and sense.
intuition itself actually makes sense(logical) but it’s not enough to be right(correct).


I disagree. Inuition is apprehension without logic (reason). It’s an “aha” moment arising from the unconscious. Logic distills intuition into rational thought. Logic can be valid but incorrect whereas intuition can be correct but not valid (at least in logical terms). Logic is the application of thought where as intution is merely thought. Intuition is an axiom, logic is the order of theorem(s) that can be derived from it to provide further thoughts.


okay that makes more “sense”. because you broke it down logically.
I wasn’t thinking of intuition and logic in the way you explained it.

i usually perceive logic as deduction which usually requires both fact and reasoning.
whereas I saw intuition as a subjective idea that makes sense within that realm.

so good. this will clear the miscommunication in the future because people usually start arguing because they have different interpretation of the same word being used


I was truly hoping the discussion would not hinge on semantics.

But, I had a thought while you were responding. Perhaps intution does make “sense”. In the form of a sensation. All mental activity is essentially thought. But perhaps intution is “thought without words”. Not quite a sensation, as sensing would seem to come before intuiting…

Anyway, let’s not get hung up here. Haha. That was just a thought I found interesting.


it’s nearly unavoidable. it’s all about the context.
MBTI is sort of semantics too if you think about it haha

and yeah I think this is where S/N works in axis in regards to jungian term. and it happens almost so instantaneously that I don’t know if it’s my thoughts sensation first. but I wouldn’t ascribe Se or Si as just merely a sensation because that’s just nonsense.
this is where cognitive-function becomes all too simplified because of such semantics applied to it.

yeah anyways. in your context, being logically ACCURATE is far better than being factually correct by far.
but it also depends on what you mean by facts. are we just talking about information that is actually subject to change or an ACTUAL fact that will be a fact no matter what. because if it’s the latter, I would rather say being factually correct is the best.


okay I’m just gonna make it into two extremes just for the sake of discussion. because logically accurate and factually correct sort of overlaps in my head.

so if I had to be either logically accurate but factually wrong, or be factually correct but logic is nonsense, I would definitely pick being factually correct any time because at least I’ll always be right and not be wrong all the time.

I’d rather make a simple statement of facts and let others reach their conclusions eventually into the correct direction using their logic.


As far as cognitive functions go (i.e. sensing, intuiting, thinking, etc.). I was leaving MBTI out of this discussion (hence the category choice) and am thinking about them in purely biological terms.

Let’s say intuition is the ability to ascertain or know a fact. And let’s also be more confident than is practical that intuition is correctly acquiring factual knowledge. In that context, facts and intuition are synonymous. So, is it better to intuit or reason?


intuit. Hands down. I’d rather be right than wrong.


i just like to repeat myself in different terms so:

I’d rather sound stupid but be right rather than sound intelligent but be dead wrong.



What good does being “right” do if it can’t be applied. It’s a fact that the sky is blue…

Or is it a fact that the blueness of the sky is the bending of light waves by gaseous particles being filtered through our retina?

If you choose the latter, then the fact becomes subjective to the perceiver. Logic, on the other hand, is a way of objectifying the subjective. But, is sadly only as reliable as the known qualities of facts.

We can’t look deeper into objects and our surroundings without reason. I think animals are factually correct. They see the world as it is. Logic sees the world as it could be.


I’m not talking about useless facts.
nothing so mundane like “there is a sky above us”

I’m sure you’ve heard of a term “women’s intuition is usually always right”

for example.
so my wife would tell me something like " that person will screw you over"
so she doesn’t present any logic here but she has stated a fact that hasn’t yet been proven.

so then I’ll reason why she’s probably wrong because of all these possibilities of reasons.
and she might be convinced because I can present logic to her but if she ends up being right at the end of the day. I was wrong and I suffer the consequences.

so in cases like this, I would much rather be factually correct even when it comes to foreseeing the future outcome.

and in my personal experiences, women’s intuition is far better than men’s.


surprisingly. my wife said she’s rather be logically accurate

me: but i’d rather be right than wrong
her: then you don’t learn
me: i don’t have to, i can just avoid all the consequences . i can be all-knowing.
her: what is life if you aren’t learning anything and being able to reason for yourself?

…like i said. women’s intuition is usually right.


This fact will be logically seen by the actual events that lead to the outcome.

Perhaps she cannot fortell these events, so in that sense you’re right. Just knowing the fact is enough.

But wouldn’t it be even better if she could explain to you why the fact is true? Or point to some heuristic experience from which her intuition arises?

And now to get extremely metaphysical.

Being “screwed over” may be relative to the experience. Perhaps in the contemporary moment that experience of being screwed over sucked balls. But later when faced with a similar situation, you may find it the most valuable experience of your life!

But even better. Maybe your wife didn’t say anything but you assessed the logical outcomes of the situation and prepared yourself for negative possibilities thereby avoiding being “screwed over”. You had no facts per se to go off of but possibilities. And entertaining the possibilities can be more revealing than entertaining the facts. Besides, avoiding the encounter based on your wife’s intuition is itself a logical act :wink:.

But as we both agree, inuition combined with logic is ideal.


Hahahaha! I like your wife.




you’re so logically correct :+1: hahaha



What a circular discussion we just had! Hahaha


okay but the sake of discussion, since you put “or” in your thread title, i want to make it into an extreme opposition even though we both agree that they should coexist with each other.

logically accurate would be like the ultimate manipulation. lies over lies over lies to make sense of something that is factually wrong. or it could just be a subjective opinion of something but it could be very convincing due to the logic itself.