You listen, you read, you see. You learn what you hear, what you read, what you see. You memorize and believe. Sound easy! No? The person grows receiving information, information that sometimes does not question. Even, an experience can show a result whose logic tells that it happened for a reason, a reason that could be apparent (be "logical") but whose true reason responds to something different, something that logic ignores. 

It would be necessary to rethink what the logic is, and who the logic works. The logic is a very important science, and understand that the criteria give coherence to any argument, therefore, knowing these fundamental criteria means having the initial requirement for the development and understanding of any other science. Without logic, we don't have support for the theory, and without theory, logic simply does not exist.  

Since our first stages, when life begins, the person has to collect data for their base, and it is those same data that will lead them to deduce until they can make decisions or discard, lean towards the best option, and build a criterion not based on knowledge (specifically, for sure), but instead of, seen what the logic tells you.

How important are critical thinking and doubt decisive in human life? Well, mistrust what the other said, what is assumed, and investigate whether it is true or not, broadens the knowledge, the person's database, and makes it possible that in the future, more than logic as a recurring response, one takes advantage of the knowledge and responds with knowledge. How more that is known, better is the answer, and certainly more and better tools to act on logic. Each learning makes it possible to respond to the acts in defense and seeks well-being. On the other hand, only distrust, without seeking the data that corroborate or deny, only ensures perishing in ignorance.

For logic to make sense, there must be prior knowledge. You do not jump into the void if you do not want to die, it is known that doing so may have a fatal consequence, the bones in the body breaks, the organs are perforated, etc., but what if a person never left the same If you never fell, you did not witness a great height, you do not know about bones and their fragility, you did not hear that they break, you did not fall from your bicycle, from a bench or your bed, and in general, you ignore the consequently, how do you build your criteria without an experience? How is it logical for someone who does not have anything similar in their database?

Intuitively, human beings believe they feel time, perceive time. According to his experience, he abandons the past at his own pace, goes forward, and as it passes, he will be able to remember what already happened, what happened a long time ago, but the future will not be remembered, because it has not arrived yet.

Now, what is closer to truth and science is that human intuition was divorced from space and time. Modern physics breaks with what is intuited, changes the character of space, changes the character of time, which common sense does not understand, which are not absolute, which are individual, personal, relative, and a space-time that, according to General Relativity, it is absolute. A marvelous madness seems to me, and yet it does not surprise me more than the rest of the universe, from every day to the possibility of the unimagined. 

Other people say that to blow the head of a physicist, just ask him What is time? for he will not have a single all-encompassing answer, even though he knows what time is, or at least can explain it from different points. If you ask a watchmaker What is time? In many cases you will paraphrase, you will have an idea, the human conception, the more it will continue to be difficult. You know superfluously, you have experience, but it is more complex. This is what happens every day with all the things that are taken for granted, that are assumed. 

It is possible to get a better or at least more entertaining experience of life, which for some is boring if you look for everything. I like the examples, I'll put one. You know what a flower looks like, you can identify a flower when you see it, but what is a flower? You will surely answer: «It is a part of the plant, it is a few colors, it is soft, it opens, matures and then withers...» Others, right? But what is a flower? No idea. With a magnifying glass or microscope, the flower is something else, in a nursery too, for an artist, for the florist. Anyway. 

Some say "time passes", others ask, where is it going? Doubt is not necessary, but vital. To go deeper, that thing must be doubted. 

No law of physics shows progress into the future, and no law of physics prevents time from going backward. Forward or backward in time, for physics, it is the same, even if human experience and its logic count something different. Time is not impassive. Something that time, space, and logic have in common is that they are relative.

Un buen punto en todo esto, es que lo lógico no será lo mismo en una persona u otra, pues ambas tienen información y experiencias distintas. Decir a otra persona «¡Eso es lógico!» lejos de evidenciar conocimiento, demuestra ignorancia.  No se puede saber exactamente la concepción que otro tiene sobre algo, por lo tanto, tampoco se podría conocer si el otro tendrá la misma reacción, respuesta, idea o solución. 

Logic is personal, it responds to something according to what it knows, ties a couple of ends, and can then deduce, however, what happens when everything that is known is wrong or the knowledge is null at all? Logic will blindly, can be wrong, and he does.