We can certainly try to be objective, try to be logical, minimize the direct influence of our personal experience, but even science itself can be tainted with subjectivity while being perfectly sound and logical. Subjectivity can affect what scientific inquiries you decide to favor over others, what kinds of questions you ask, what kinds of hypotheses you decide to explore.

While upbringings might influence, they are not the be all and end all, and will not lead to exactly the same opinion, as different interpretations will take place.

On this, we can assume that interpretation of an event rather than the statistics or event are in argument, as it is what they make of it.

Logic is the removal of this interpretation, or at least attempt at it – looking at the base (statistic, event, whatever) and following a line of reasoning, until the point that it breaks down, and becomes illogical, then can therefore not be the “right” logic.

To have logic and a line of reasoning you need to have something you can base it on, which personal experience cannot be used. Why? Because logic relies on facts, to provide the necessary line of reasoning and to back up said reasoning, of which most personal experience doesn’t provide enough of, because of how much personal interpretation plays a part and whatever experience that may be, it will not be wholly representative. Often I’ve noticed that when someone tries to present personal experience, whatever argument that may be goes quiet as if that personal experience trumps everything, even without considering whether that experience was representative.

Logic, in many ways is basically science. You have to have a genuine basis, context, to follow it first. This is why there is so much difference on many issues as I see it, because there are many people who only have one part of the picture, not the whole. For logic to work you need that whole.

For objectivity to work, it’s how good you are at being able to distance yourself from your own personal feelings on the subject, research the subject fully and follow a line of reasoning that doesn’t break down. Just because someone who has been through something might not automatically mean they’re more informed – for example, the issue of the death sentence depends on other factors, like whether it is a strong enough deterrent, the role of law enforcement being to punish and in modern times, rehabilitate (which could or should be extended to crimes that might normally get a death sentence), issues of human rights amongst others. To get proper logic and objectivity, these must be taken into account, with decent enough evidence and research to go off of, and then follow the logic that considers all these points to a point at which that line of reasoning can be complete, or becomes broken.

That is objectivity and logic. I myself am an incredibly logical person, who consistently tries to follow lines of reason based on solid evidence, not personal experience. To do that, you need to look at the wider issues, look at facts and figures as a solid basis (of which appears to be the main reason why many people differ on subjects – a lack of facts or the whole facts) and follow a line of reason.

Another example – your post on the homosexual and Christians documentary. I think after seeing that, people would, as long as they properly considered the facts that were presented, would agree with what was brought up in the documentary. I had a debate with someone on that video, I explained to them the facts that were presented and the logical line of reasoning – what happened? They seemingly gave up, simply replying “hot air”, which suggested to me the only thing that stopped them from accepting what I said (as they hadn’t provided any satisfactory argument that went against mine) was their own preconception and seeming lack of wanting to accept the facts presented, rather than any genuine personal interpretation that could’ve justified his view, and subsequently him calling my argument hot air, without decent reasoning or basis to do so. His logic broke down without sufficient basis.