[andyfox]

I think I've answered my own question and can use a poker analogy to illustrate.

Suppose I am up against a player who knows me very well, but who plays badly. By “plays badly,” we can assume he has trouble recognizing an illogical argument, or rather, that he has more trouble with it than I do. Now, I will likely beat him because his logic skills are inferior and his knowledge of how I play will not help him much.

So his knowledge cannot make up for his logic shortcomings.

Suppose, on the other hand, I am up against a player who doesn’t know me, but who plays very well. (We can use David for this example.) I will likely be outplayed because David’s logic skills are superior and translate into superior poker skills and his lack of knowledge of how I play will not hurt him much.

So it seems a person who has superior logic skills can indeed make up for lack of knowledge.

Having said this, though, one wonders if the greatest blunders are committed (or would have been committed) by those with logic deficiencies or those with knowledge deficiencies. The case of Von Neumann recommending bombing the Soviet Union comes immediately to mind.