If you only saw white swans and then said with absolute certainty: "All swans are or must be white!" But, there is still a possibility of a black swan existing.
you cannot logically derive "all swans are white or must be white" from your experience, all you can say is merely: "all swans others and I have observed so far, are white."
Our minds can try applying logic to things that are simply outside of our experience, or will forever remain outside of our experience, but it is foolish to think that by doing this we have some valid, certain conclusions. It is irrational to think that we can have absolutely certain answers to such questions, since such a thing is completely outside of the possibility of our experience, so it cannot be validated, proven or disproven in any way.
The same goes for our wants and demands, humans often want or demand things that are simply not possible, such as being held in high regard by literally everyone. Has such thing ever been achieved and maintained? If there is no data on this, then it is foolish to assume it must be possible, or demand that we must be held in high regard by everyone. Irrational is not merely not applying logic, but also having unclear terms referring to things we are not sure are possible and then concluding such things must be possible or even that we must have them. Though it does still seem like all fallacious thought results from not considering mere possibilities as mere possibilities, but instead proposing claims, which are merely logically possible, as if they are "absolutely necessary", which is still not applying logic. What I am saying is: "There was some kind of logical reasoning included, but a logical fallacy was made."
Like, say someone danced multiple times and rain occurred, a lot of people would jump at the idea: "There, he had logically valid reason to conclude that dance causes rain! Therefore it was logical and rational, as well as any theory about how the world works. So, what is nowadays deemed as rational is in service of one specific mindset, an authority that is enforced on everyone else."
The mistake here is obvious, the flaw of the person who concluded that dancing causes rain is in concluding that dancing necessarily causes rain, rather than considering it as mere possibility. He actually made a logically invalid conclusion, an irrational conclusion. - Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
lol, what is proper research sample?
If such display of illogical thinking is taken as some kind of evidence against logic, then it's like barking up the wrong tree.
If someone advanced has not understood this, then it is clear he has not read Critique of Pure Reason properly. Though, if that is so, can such a person even be called advanced at all?