The illogical problem

Define logic through logic without falling into a fallacy.

There are a few features at play here. Aside from the issue of ambiguity and amphibole in language, and the fact that many seemingly logical arguments gloss over critical details which may be later attacked, there is the simple issue of different starting axioms. If someone postulates that all life is sacred, and another does not, no amount of logical reasoning by one side will totally convince the other. Sometimes people agree out of politeness, or expediency, but upon further reflection realise they reject one of the axioms the arguer has implicitly assumed.

I don't think that aesthetics are illogical in the sense of being irrational. There is an important distinction between illogicality and irrationality, the former being merely the category of that which is not in the domain of logic, the later that which is in the domain of logic but defiant of it. Aesthetics are often grounded in evolutionary psychology. Creativity is a whole other bag of beans. I don't know that one can categorise the spontaneous character of creativity as irrational. It violates the flow of theme more often than not, but this is hardly irrational.

My contention would be that it is extremely computationally expensive to reason perfectly. As such we have evolved a number of heuristics which work well enough to permit the awesome success which humanity has had by and large at building our civilisation and prospering. Not to say we have had perfect success, but for a bunch of apes we are doing pretty good I would think. These heuristics sacrifice reliability for tractability.

There is a very interesting article in the Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology on computational models of human reasoning which exhibit the same fallacies which human beings do. Long story short, we generally consider only positive information rather than negative information in considering possibilities, and this misleads us systematically. Fortunately we have the ability to train ourselves to play the game of formal logic, and internalise more accurate reasoning principles, but this is costly and remains error prone. Hence the need for peer review in any scientific project.

In short, politeness and over reliance on heuristics account for much of the behaviour you lament.

Logic can only be defined by example; by something beyond itself in pure terms.

Its then simply a matter of people ignoring the logic, because maybe there is something missing?
And when they cannot point to that which is missing, they just default to the assumption it must be there
because the given error is popular idea. And it must be true because it is on TV.

What this really shows is a fear of being in the minority.
Herd instinct, perhaps?

Better to die as a group than to live alone, maybe?  

Well here is a good example itself.
I say that logic can be shown be example,
and you then reach the conclusion that demonstrating example has no form in and of itself.

An example has the form of demonstration which implies empirical observation
as well as a logical structure. Thus, not purely logical.

So, the example:

A black hole is said to not be able to emit anything that moves even at light-speed.
But the Nobel prize for 2017 is awarded for claiming to prove that gravity
has been observed emanating from black-holes,
and that gravity was said to be observed moving at light-speed.

Now that is just a blatant contradiction.
Either black-hole theory is wrong,
or the observation is wrong.

Now anyone can waffle endlessly about all sorts of sophisticated
reasons why that is not a contradiction,
but all those arguments boil down to is that it is not a contradiction
because it won a famous award.

And out of fear of being in a minority,
its easier just to pretend that the emperor has very beautiful clothes.

Then when the proverb hits the fan...??

Defensively Conforming to Non-Conformity

You're assuming that because they can't immediately see the fallacy, they have no grounds for suspicion.  Second, you assume that their reaction is fearful conformity, when it may be from individual experience at being tricked.  Then you get more predatory about your illusion of being above the masses when you jump off into calling us all "couch potatoes."

Man cannot be part of a herd, because man is not an animal.  So you yourself are conforming to the supercilious Snob Mob, who have no reason to be proud of themselves. Escapism onto an imaginary higher level leads to falling and crashing.

No I do not.
I had hoped you had read the rest of the thread, but I shall repeat
the solid logic which proves my point.
(If I was such a snob, I smugly would not even have need to make any point.)

The Nobel prize 2017 was for the claim that gravity moved at light-speed,
and it was claimed this gravity was observed emanating form a black-hole binary merger.

But the premise of this fake award was that nothing that moves at light-speed
can escape the black-hole at all.

Not only because of the gravity of the black-hole itself,
but also because time is said to stop at the event horizon,
so even if gravity moved at 1 million times light-speed
it could not escape.

Moreover, after the merger, the resultant black-hole
was said to be rotating at 0.6 light-speed.

But time has stopped for the event horizon,
so the black-hole could not possibly rotate.

Now you can choose to ignore pure logic and just believe the TV,
most people are terrified of being in defiance of 'big brother',
so you will be 'comfortable' in your dissonance.

Or you can realize that the Nobel prize is just 
pop culture; and look more deeply at the reality 
of the logic in the ontology here:
www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm

Or you can just shrug than think that truth does not matter.
When it matters more than I can even begin to try and explain.
Lord,
oh how it matters.