> heuristic is not working without logic and probability. heuristic is an undercategory of it and is mostly using probabilitys!

Citation please.

Also note I said: "...there is substantial evidence that heuristics do not run on (actual, flawless) logic."

> u have not all info, but you still use logic and probability to come to a solution. Like trail and error, statistics and so on. all of those methods cant work without logic and probability.

You can also flip a coin to come to a solution.

>>> Kants Imperatives gives you everything you need. The hypothetic gives you the logic and the categoric gives you the clear goal you need to attend.

>> Is this necessarily an evidence-based True Fact, or might it be merely a heuristic powered belief?

> My sentence of Kant and his Imperatives is not very precise. So im not sure what exactly you ask to be true here.

Is it objectively true that it gives you everything that you need?

> A fact is the ationalistic/hypothetic system that is like causal and determiend analytics, methods that work to create truth and function. They are evidence-based but also use probability. As heuristic is also evidence-based in the end, but its only a probability where you expect the evidence to be.

If probabilistic, then not guaranteed to give a correct answer.

> And the categoric imperative is also a method that works for moral.

A sledge hammer "works" for opening a locked door also, but how optimal is it?

> So further, u can understand that moral, like all other systems, is a system of goals and methods and you can analyze goals and methods with the hypothetical/rational system (including logic and probability). And thats also evidence-based but also heuristic!

Whether one gets remotely correct answers is another matter.

> If people disagree with other peoples logics and conclusions, then there must be a reason for it. One reason could be, they dont have all the facts. Another reason could be, they dont have the same goals/methods (this is very important). And a third reason could be, they dont manage to come to the right conclusion, even if they have the facts and the same goals. And a forth reason could be, all first three together.

Another potential issue: there is no correct answer and the person isn't smart enough to realize it, due to the shit education systems we have going on here on planet Earth.

> > > > So for example, you have to jews analyzing a moral problem but both come to different conclusions. So where is the problem? They done have the same moral, they dont have the same facts or they dont understand them in the same way. or everything together.

One problem: people are not taught how to recognize when their thinking is unsound.

> of course its a big problem if you have two different systems, but you think its the same. this is the reason for many wars and many misunderstandings and social separations. and not just in morals.

Agree on this!