It Does Not Follow

Almost anything that is popularly articulated is either metaphysically false or epistemologically unknowable for humans.  Logical necessities, such as the fact that logical deductions are true irrespective of all else (if nothing logically followed from anything else, it would not follow from anything in reality that logic is false, which would still make it true by default) or that truth exists (if nothing was true, then it would be true that there is no truth, so it is correct either way), are neglected in favor of contradictions and assumptions.  So varied and plentiful are the misconceptions about what does and does not logically follow from a given thing that philosophical blindness and utterly backwards beliefs/frameworks are the norm.  Much of what is believed is blatantly false, or even logically impossible, or at least unprovable.  Much of what is true and verifiable is undiscovered or feared by the abundant non-rationalists one is always likely to meet.

It does not follow from spending decades in a seemingly happy marriage that one spouse is not inwardly full of loathing or apathy towards the other.  Since mental states and words or facial expressions are not the same thing, and since people are not telepathic, there is absolutely no way to tell beyond possibly misleading perceptions what exactly someone is thinking or feeling no matter their outward disposition.  It also does not follow that one's moral feelings about how one should or should not treat anyone else--from a spouse to a total stranger--because emotion of all kinds does not make anything good, evil, or permissible.  For something that might subjectively strike some people as even stranger, it does not follow from the concept of a vampire being foreign to everyday sensory life that a vampire's existence is logically impossible.  Since it would not contradict axioms, even if there are and never have been vampires, there could have been.

Back to things that everyday life brushes up against that are still far more abstract than fools dare to acknowledge, it does not follow from seeing or hearing a bird, a car, or a river that the specific stimulus is actually there.  All that is proven is that the mental perceptions are there (in fact, a mind is more fundamental to sensory qualia than actual senses integrated with the body).  Sensory experiences of this kind might ultimately only reflect someone's own consciousness, having nothing to do with any external world of matter.  Likewise, experiencing memories of several moments ago, such as having just placed a key on a countertop or having just walked indoors from outside, only proves that one has the memories.  Whether they actually happened or not does not logically follow either way despite one possibility or the other being true (by necessity, one of them must be true).

There are numerous other example governed by the metaphysical and epistemological truth that very little follows by logical necessity from many things.  For instance, it does not follow from Muslims believing something that it is actually part of Quranic philosophy (Islam is false for other reasons) or from the Bible saying to kill sorceresses (Exodus 22:18) that the sin is being a woman and practicing sorcery, as opposed to just practicing sorcery, the obvious sin mentioned in the verse (Genesis 1:26-27 excludes this).  It does not follow from adultery being objectively immoral, if this is the case, that a married person savoring sexual attraction to other people is adulterous.  It also would not follow from a lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life of any kind that there is no alien life present anywhere in the cosmos.

Some of these things which do not follow are possible even if they are unverifiable.  It could certainly be the case that there are no birds or rivers outside of the mind in existence because perceptions of them are illusions, as this does not contradict logical axioms.  One just could not know this truth.  With something like extramarital sexual attraction not being adulterous (intention to commit adultery is), this is true and demonstrable by logical necessity in itself and is not a matter of whether something is potentially true but unknowable.  Many people are non-rationalists and thus they are awful at avoiding assumptions or even attempting to do so.  All of these things and far more will be unknown by them because they ignore or deny logical axioms, which all other things depend upon.  Only assumptions are their ideological companions because even if a random belief of theirs is right, they have only presumed it to be true.