Much of what I see posted here argues from logic. Logic is fine, but it does have its limitations. To illustrate, Luigi Barzini in his book "The Italians" (published 1964) tells this story: a very wealthy Sicilian made a vow to make a pilgramage by foot to Jerusalem. As he contemplated this he realized that he would be absent for a very long time. So, he calculated the distance overland from the mainland of Italy to Jerusalem and then measured the distance around his estate. Dividing the greater distance by the smaller distance, his logic said that he would fulfil his vow if he walked around his estate that many times.
Since I teach logic, among other things, at a university, I can tell you logic isn't "his" or mine or anyone else's. It is a public science, just as mathematics is public. His "reasoning" led him astray, only because he reasoned poorly, as does the child who concludes that 2+3=6. If he merely vowed to walk a certain distance, then he could fulfill that vow by walking that distance, over any location. If he vowed to walk to a certain location, then just walking the equivalent distance would not fulfill the vow. That is what careful reasoning shows. There are many many people who don't know how to reason; they come into my courses every semester.
I'm going out of town for the next four days, so I can't continue the dialogue here. Cheers!
-A8