And "thinking". Consider the difference between using logic in traditional mathematics to how thinking needs to be done in the sciences. In the former, we are deriving something, in the latter we are -negotiating- between phenomena and our representations. In science, we don't get to nail our premises/definitions, and we don't get to enumerate the extent cases. We only get inductions. And so on. A "perfectly reasoned conclusion" still needs to be checked out with nature.
In life in the large we have to be even more careful about logic, because it plays into several dozens of biases we have -- ultimately from genetics, but many have been honed by our cultures. In order to do modern thinking in almost every arena, we have to add a lot of context to normal logic, and often have to paradoxically weaken it in order to think better.
In talks, I try to get audiences to understand that logic is not nearly as good a way to think about thinking and do thinking as (say) science is. And science is not the only powerful context we can use to help us calibrate our mental compasses.
With regard to "thinking", logic is one of the servants of the Art, not the Master.