Logico-Empirical chains, or How Jinns can make you blue
Being simply logical is not enough.
Statement: The sky is blue, because some Jinns spilled the blue dye over it.
Saying the statement above is not logical is silly. Does the blue dye not color things in blue? It is silly only as long as you take empirical evidence into account: atmosphere, air conditions, can you find traces of the blue dye? has anyone seen the act? etc…
If you cannot find reasonable evidence to the action, the statement becomes a belief. Beliefs may require resolution, for example, when they concern life itself (see Ends of Life), in which case they are necessitated due to the import of the matter.
However, if the belief is not necessitated (who cares whether Jinns did it?), it becomes a useless question.
We propose to use logico-empirical chains that facilitate epistemological inquiry by using both evidence and logical rules.