Yes, I think you've touched on something here that goes all the way back to Aristotle's three appeals (logos, ethos, pathos).
His belief was that a good argument relies on a balance, between appeals to logic (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to what is just / ethical (ethos).
People typically claim logic or objectivity as a simple shorthand for "better", they rarely include formal inductive and deductive logic.
And while formal logic can tremendously enhance the structure and impact arguments, it provides a hollow foundation without appeals to what is right/just, and of little motivation to the reader without appeals to their emotion.
The horrifying thing about our species, is that when you get down to it we care little for formal logic. Caring requires emotion, and emotion often requires ideals about how things should be; consequently, ethos and pathos are necessary for logos.
The pursuit of logic comes last, or as you've noted, sometimes not at all.
His belief was that a good argument relies on a balance, between appeals to logic (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to what is just / ethical (ethos).
People typically claim logic or objectivity as a simple shorthand for "better", they rarely include formal inductive and deductive logic.
And while formal logic can tremendously enhance the structure and impact arguments, it provides a hollow foundation without appeals to what is right/just, and of little motivation to the reader without appeals to their emotion.
The horrifying thing about our species, is that when you get down to it we care little for formal logic. Caring requires emotion, and emotion often requires ideals about how things should be; consequently, ethos and pathos are necessary for logos.
The pursuit of logic comes last, or as you've noted, sometimes not at all.