Well, I would maintain that there are two basic types of logic.

The first is a casual, simple logic akin to "common sense" which is applied by your average human being.

The second is a deeper, more intense, logic which is found in the great minds of scientists and such.

Take, for example, the flat earth/ spherical earth question.

Now, simple logic would say that the world must be flat otherwise anything on the underside of "sphere" would fall off.

However, even using "simple logic", some ancient men must have pondered the "horizon/ship approaching" question that puzzled some ancient Greek scientists.
This is where people looking out to sea observed that the topmost part of an approaching ship's sails were the first part of the ship to be seen from land.

Now, using "simple logic", some ancient men might have noted this phenomena but never "stretched their minds" any further and pondered why.

But, we know, greater minds went looking for an explanation.

Therefore, I would claim that "simple logic/common sense" as opposed to a scientific more penetrating logic, is the reason that logic, as applied by "Mr Average", is not to be trusted.

Here is another example.

Literally. millions of people before Isaac Newton must have observed "things" falling to the ground, and all those million's logic told them that it was because the falling objects had mass or weight or whatever.

That is the simple logic/common sense approach.

Moving on.

As to my "Muslim"/Mohammad logic point.

It is not logically to believe a person when he says - without verification - that he was visited by an angel, and that he could fly around on a winged horse.

That is not logical! Indeed, if people were approached in the street with that story, I'm sure not one of those people would believe the story.

Why? Because it isn't logical now, and it wasn't logical over 1000 years ago.