Limited Logic System

A logical framework with clear boundaries—defined axioms, fixed rules, constrained possibilities—that operates within those boundaries to produce valid inferences and reliable conclusions. Limited logic systems are what we actually use most of the time: classical logic in mathematics, legal reasoning in courts, scientific method in labs. They're powerful precisely because they're limited—the boundaries create the clarity that makes reasoning possible. Limited logic systems are the workhorses of thought, reliable and productive. They're also incomplete—they can't handle everything, don't claim to. That's what makes them useful.

Limited Logic System Example: "Her legal training was a limited logic system—clear rules, defined precedents, constrained interpretations. Within those limits, she could reason with precision and power. Outside them, she was as lost as anyone. The limits weren't failures; they were the source of her expertise. Limited logic made her effective in her domain and humble about its boundaries."

by Abzugal February 17, 2026

Perfect Logic Fallacy

The mistaken belief that arguments must be logically perfect to be valid—that any logical flaw, no matter how minor or irrelevant, invalidates the entire conclusion. This fallacy ignores that most real-world arguments are not formally perfect, yet still convey truth, persuade audiences, and guide action. The perfect logic fallacy is beloved of internet pedants who delight in pointing out irrelevant formal errors while ignoring the substantive point. It's the logic of "you committed a fallacy, therefore you're wrong," which confuses form with content. The cure is recognizing that logic is a tool, not a tyrant—useful for clarifying thought, not for dismissing it.

Perfect Logic Fallacy Example: "She made an argument about economic inequality. He pounced on a minor logical slip—irrelevant to her main point—and declared her entire argument invalid. The perfect logic fallacy had done its work: avoiding substance by seizing on form. She stopped engaging, which was probably what he wanted."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026

Logical Stalling Tactic

The use of logical demands—requests for definitions, demands for evidence, requests for clarification—not to advance understanding but to delay, distract, or derail conversation. Logical stalling tactics are what happens when someone asks "define your terms" not because they need definitions but because they want to stop the argument. It's the logic of "what do you mean by 'fair'?" (asked for the tenth time), of "prove that assertion" (after the tenth proof). Logical stalling tactics are beloved of bad-faith arguers who know they can't win but can always delay. The cure is recognizing when stalling is happening and refusing to play—offering definitions once, then moving on; providing evidence once, then demanding engagement.

Example: "Every time she made a point, he demanded a definition, a source, a proof. Not because he needed them—he never engaged with what she provided—but because each demand slowed her down, exhausted her, drained the conversation. Logical stalling tactics had turned dialogue into obstacle course. She eventually stopped trying, which was his goal all along."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026