I have muddied the waters by writing about fact and empiricality rather than logic and logical thinking. The distinction between "revealed truth" and "working hypothesis" that Bill made and repeatedly emphasizes in his posts over time is what is most salient to me.

As an aside, I am more of an intuitive thinker than a consciously logical thinker. (Always wrote the paper first, then went back and teased out the outline.) I speculate that one thing very logical thinkers and intuitive thinkers have in common is the notion of hypotheses. Logical thinkers begin with an hypothesis, and end with an hypothesis.    Intuitive thinkers end with a hypothesis, but have no clue where we started from our how we arrived at the end. Thus we ever question our conclusions:^)