I believe the entire point of logic is that there are NOT two ways to interpret it.
Right. There are not two ways to interpret logic itself, but there are multiple ways in which the rules of logic may be applied to circumstances, resulting in different conclusions.
I mean, we can see that in science itself - apart from any supernatural or religious elements. People do scientific experiments. They posit hypotheses, gather data, test that data in a lab-type environment (or the closest possible equivalent), employ controls, make observations, and draw conclusions. Lo and behold if a great number of those conclusions don't turn out to be flat wrong. The vast majority of them will wind up being at least modified over time.
Why is that? It is because when all the variables haven't been identified and/or observed
associations that appear solid as a rock may well be spurious
The nature of a hypothesis is that someone has drawn a logical conclusion about a set of observations. A "logical conclusion." Then they set out to test it. Their hypothesis might be true, it might not be. But if the hypothesis turns out to be false, are you going to say that it was illogical and irrational from the start? If a hypothesis, untested, untried, and unproven is by nature illogical and, ergo, irrational, why do we even test them to begin with?
A logic puzzle, for instance, is a puzzle that requires no guesswork, no leaps of faith, no playing the odds, no choices. Done properly (i.e. using sound logic), there can never be an disagreement between two people that are working on a logic problem.
Well, unfortunately very little of life is that airtight. If you'll just reflect for a minute instead of working overtime to define terms so narrowly that there is no room left in the boat of rationality for anyone but yourself, you'll begin to see what I mean about being short-sighted.
So, when someone says that an argument is or is not "logical", they may be right or they may be wrong, but never can two people both use sound logic and arrive at different positions on a logic problem. You and I cannot both have logical answers to the same problem if our answers are different. Either one (or both) of us have used unsound logic, or the problem cannot be resolved using logic alone.
So then, in the case of two scientists who are currently using the scientific method on the same hypothesis and coming to different conclusions, one is right and one is wrong. The one who is wrong is simply illogical? And if they are both wrong, they are both being illogical? Or, if one can use the scientific method and still be wrong, maybe its the scientific method which is illogical?
Here is where you're misunderstood. What is logic, by definition? Logic: "A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference
. An alternate definition is simpler still. "The quality of being justifiable by reason
You are leaving no room at all
for inference or reason, both of which are incredibly important to the process of logic.
Now, can you see back before the Big Bang? Are you privy to information we don't have? Because if you aren't, you have nothing to go on but inference and reason, regards the origin of life and the universe. Have you seen beyond death and know it to be nothing more than a cessation of all physical and cognitive processes? If not, then you are dealing with inference and reason in regard to the afterlife.
By your definition of logic, the only thing that seems to qualify is that which is utterly and completely empirical through and through. But logic is not that stringent. It makes room for reason and inference. You look at a message written in the sand, but there is not a soul in sight to claim it as their handiwork. Are you illogical to assume an intelligent force created it? I mean, all you have to go on are inference and reason.
So either we are both using inference and reason to draw philosophical conclusions about things we cannot see and have no empirical knowledge of - both coming to logical and rational conclusions (albeit, one of us is wrong in the case of God). OR we are BOTH irrational and illogical. Take your pick. I care not, as long as we are being consistent.