knowledge

Knowledge: how do we know anything.
Logic and math are things that are objective and things not challenged. This premise was used to understand that there are things that we can know and are objective and cannot or elicit much challenge.

Is this an appropriate and comparable method when dealing with ideas?
Math’s method of proof is much more concrete. Adding 2+2 is always going to be 4 independent of the individual or perceiver and does not rely much on extraneous influences that can change this reality. Numbers also stay static and are consistent and predictable in how they would behave when dealt with. It does not require and is not influenced or takes into account the context of how is it being processed. Ideas on the other hand are more dynamic in their nature and its interpretation is heavily influenced by the availability of the information that we humans can relate with. We can have a basic understanding and universal agreement on what an idea is, but then its reality can change and the information that we can glean from it can expand as we discover and realize the diversity of its meaning as we interact and receive more information about it. Maybe the use of this proof method is inappropriate when thinking about ideas since math and ideas do not behave in a similar way and would come up with different conclusions.
Math expects a solution that is objective and puts a clear and definite and clear restraint on the solution that we come up with, but ideas are more difficult to place restraints and declare definite conclusions since it is more complex and takes into account the individuality of the perceiver processing it. Using math's logic (if-then statements) places a definite and particular expectation and imposes what “should be” the conclusion as predicted, thus limiting what ideas can be and maybe inappropriately forcing an expectation that is bound to be convoluted because of the more often inproper ways of measuring the outcomes.

Logic to be is also reliant on how culture and the diversity of people can make use of it. What is the standard of determining what is logical. The definition of what is logical might be different in how a culture interacts with an idea and how it is going to be manipulated for its own necessities. yes, i do agree that a chair places limitations on how we can make use of it and relate with again, but then again, this is a chair that is not necessarily changing as culture and how reality can change its nature of use based on what is availability at that time, and could be claimed as merely logical.

im not advocating that logic and math are both useless, but maybe we have inappropriately used its application and distorted reality as a consequence...