SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 4 (ON LOGIC) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 4 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.
LATE CREDIT FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE, SINCE QUARTER 2 HAS ENDED.
THANKS,
Mr. B
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence
I believe logic is the art of going wrong with confidence becuase if your confident and strong. any argument you make will be logical if your smart and confident in your answer. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. if one confidentaly backs up their argument the logic has aken place.
"Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge"
I agree with this quote. Logic is used mostly in intellectual arguments or as we have seen in math class. It is very hard to argue with a valid conclusion because it followed the "rules".
For example:
A is B
B is C
therefore, A is c
This example followed the rules of the premises and is Valid. However, this does not make sense. This is where deductive reasoning falls short. We can not use logic in every situation because sometimes our common sense is what we should use. People would start to use logic in places where it shouldn't be used. We all know that A is not C. Benjamin Jowett has reason to say people are using logic as a dodge.
For example:
A is B
B is C
therefore, A is c
This example followed the rules of the premises and is Valid. However, this does not make sense. This is where deductive reasoning falls short. We can not use logic in every situation because sometimes our common sense is what we should use. People would start to use logic in places where it shouldn't be used. We all know that A is not C. Benjamin Jowett has reason to say people are using logic as a dodge.
Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence
i think that just because it logical it is true. i mean you can manipulate anything you think into being logical if your confident enought with your answer. like if im set on beliving that all apples are red because ive never seen a green apple doesnt mean im wrong and i have both truth and validity to it. you have to think the anwser is true to give it logic
A. "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence"
There are two parts of logic: truth and validity. At first glance, it seems to be more than possible to have both of these aspects; after all, there must be some statements that everyone can agree are true, and there must be a way to combine these statements that allows the creation of a new and unflinchingly true statement.
Let us start with the second aspect of logic, validity, in our examination. Aristotle created the art of syllogisms, the method of combining statements universally acknowledged to be true (premises) to establish new statements that must therefore also be acknowledged as truth. If one followed the syllogism rules he (discovered? created?), one could prove any point one wanted. This seems to make sense: If all of A is B, and all of B is C, then therefore all of A is C. If we accept the premises (all of A is B, all of B is C) of as truth, I doubt many people could successfully argue that the conclusion (all of A is C) is incorrect.
This is from where the "confidence" part of the quote comes. If your premises are correct and you follow the rules of logic, then you can confidently say that your conclusions are correct. (Hm, there seems to be a syllogism of sorts in my previous sentence... Let's hope it's not too invalid.)
So far, the possibility of logic to be right has relied on a very big "if": the ability for any premise to be universally and unequivocally true. It is a question that philosophers, theologians, scientists, and mathematicians (the names "Euclid" and "Lobachevski" ring any bells?) have grappled with for ages. Some people may think that of course there are unquestionably true premises: two parallel lines will never touch each other. They say that such statements are self evidently true, and by slowly building off of these sorts of premises all sorts of arguments may be made.
Now, these arguments may be valid and may appear to be true, but will we ever really *know* if something is true? If a statement is self evidently true, it's a statement that can't be proven, and if it can't be proven, how can we ever know for a fact that it's true? The answer is, we can't. We can only instinctually believe that they're true, and the whole point of logic is to eliminate instinctual belief in favor of hard, cold, scientific proof. There will always be a challenge to any premise, and if we can't prove a premise, how are we supposed let it go and believe that it's self evidently true? These premises are possibilities, and usually very likely ones, but we can't ever definitively know their truthfulness.
Our logical arguments may be valid, sound arguments that would be true if the premises were true. However, no premise can ever unequivocally be proven true, and therefore any logical argument may be considered (at least partly) false. An arguer can be confident, but they can't be definitively correct.
I agree with the first one that logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. With logical proofs, you can prove many things to be right, even if they are false. Things that seem logical can also be false. This is how people can argue things that they know are wrong, but can still make a logical argument. Or, how people can preform actions that seem like bad ideas to us, but to the person preforming them seem logical.
A) Logic is the art of going wrong but with confidence
I think that logic isn't a stand alone guarentee of credulity, if anything it can be a useful tool to weed out irrational errors. Basically, this istatement is saying that people instill a lot of confidence in logic, despite being wrong, because they believe that with logic there is always a final and definite answer that cannot be argued. However, although logic always has an answer, it doesn’t really consider emotional or other environmental effects as they are not definite consequences on an action. If you try to apply logical thought to things totally outside its capacity to understand, it becomes a defective thought. That’s how logic easily goes wrong. But where does the confidence part come in? Well, since logic is already drawn out for you and has a final answer that you can’t argue against, it makes one feel confident in their answer because they know, or they think they know, that it is impossible to argue and be wrong. It’s easy to feel confident and well-assured in trusting in something that cannot be argued, but what people don’t consider is that there are things “outside the box” that can defy and prove logic to be wrong.
Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence?
This is a really difficult question or quote to analyze or dissect so that it can make sense. I feel like the logic can be manipulted so that it can sway towards a persons argument. As many people posted an example of a logic that was truthful but not valid, it was formed to make the proof or logic make sense for their argument. Is manipulation a part of confidence? In aristolean geometry, probably.
But learning the truth and validity of logic you have to try and try again to make it right. That involves confidence. Confidence is a weird word for me to associate with logic, to me its like a contridiction because my definition of confindence is odd to apply here. Do you have to believe in your answer so much so that you manipulate it to make it right? To prove a proof you need to demonstrate the proper format and principles of the logic to make it right.
In all honesty i have no idea how to answer either quotes. But im trying here.
What does confidence have to do with logic?
I can see that proving something can bring confidence and learning the knowledge needed for a subject/practice that comes with it makes confidence in the knowedge. But if your wrong and you thought you were right... you would be wrong. Wounded pride? so being wrong makes you more humble than confident therefore leading the proover to be wrong until prooven right.
geez.
feel free to explain to me in class mr B.
But learning the truth and validity of logic you have to try and try again to make it right. That involves confidence. Confidence is a weird word for me to associate with logic, to me its like a contridiction because my definition of confindence is odd to apply here. Do you have to believe in your answer so much so that you manipulate it to make it right? To prove a proof you need to demonstrate the proper format and principles of the logic to make it right.
In all honesty i have no idea how to answer either quotes. But im trying here.
What does confidence have to do with logic?
I can see that proving something can bring confidence and learning the knowledge needed for a subject/practice that comes with it makes confidence in the knowedge. But if your wrong and you thought you were right... you would be wrong. Wounded pride? so being wrong makes you more humble than confident therefore leading the proover to be wrong until prooven right.
geez.
feel free to explain to me in class mr B.
“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”
I think that it is quite difficult to sayy that logic is the art of going wrong with confidence because there are many times that you can confidently use logic to make your point. Although premises are often disproved through logic, it is because the premise will not entirely relate to the argument. For example:
All cars are nissan
A honda civic is not a nissan
(therefor) A honda civic is not a Car.
This premise is not accurate because it does not include all cars, not just because the author of the premise lacks the confidence to call it a car. For a person to say that you must not have confidence if you use logic, then they are using logic that is not logical. Understand??
All cars are nissan
A honda civic is not a nissan
(therefor) A honda civic is not a Car.
This premise is not accurate because it does not include all cars, not just because the author of the premise lacks the confidence to call it a car. For a person to say that you must not have confidence if you use logic, then they are using logic that is not logical. Understand??
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Logic and Truth are Not the Same
“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”
Logic is a very hard topic to discuss because of the difference between logic and truth. Something could be logically true but that doesn't mean that it has to be the truth. Consider this:
All dogs are black.
Ringo is a dog.
(Therefore) Ringo is black.
Ringo is a dog.
(Therefore) Ringo is black.
Now this postulate is logical, but not truthful. As humans, we know that not all dogs are black (and if you know my dog Ringo, you know he's not black), but the statement is still correct based on the "rules governing validity." This is where the logic comes in. For something to be logical, it doesn't need to be truthful, it just needs to be correct, in regards to the "rules governing validity." Relating back to the quote, this postulate or any other logical postulate (that is not truthful) is "going wrong" because its not truthful. But, it's "going wrong with confidence," because it is logically correct. Basically, it's wrong in regards to the truth but it's confident in the fact that it's logically correct. This use of deductive reasoning is helpful because it can prove a statement correct, but the problem is that the statement doesn't always need to be truthful.
Logical yet...
A.)
In today’s world logic is synonymous with truth; however, this is not always correct. Logic is very generalized and tends to never take in exceptions or details of the situation.
For instance you could have the logical statement:
1. It is illegal to run a red light.
2. Ambulances run red lights.
3. Ambulances are breaking the law.
Logic does not look at the details of the situation. Aristotle’s logic is very black and white and life is rarely black and white. In fact it is usually some shade of gray. Logic; however, does sound reasonable and so we become confident that logical statements are true. This is what J.W. Krutch meant by "going wrong with confidence”. we may be incorrect in our logical statements but we will be confident that they are true because they sound so logical. The ability to go wrong with confidence comes from logic’s ability to gain conclusions without looking at the details. What is being said sounds correct but only because it is such a general statement. The confidence that our logic is correct leads to us continuing with the incorrect logical statements. When you have one error you will keep on building on that error and then everything that comes from that original error will be untrue.
In today’s world logic is synonymous with truth; however, this is not always correct. Logic is very generalized and tends to never take in exceptions or details of the situation.
For instance you could have the logical statement:
1. It is illegal to run a red light.
2. Ambulances run red lights.
3. Ambulances are breaking the law.
Logic does not look at the details of the situation. Aristotle’s logic is very black and white and life is rarely black and white. In fact it is usually some shade of gray. Logic; however, does sound reasonable and so we become confident that logical statements are true. This is what J.W. Krutch meant by "going wrong with confidence”. we may be incorrect in our logical statements but we will be confident that they are true because they sound so logical. The ability to go wrong with confidence comes from logic’s ability to gain conclusions without looking at the details. What is being said sounds correct but only because it is such a general statement. The confidence that our logic is correct leads to us continuing with the incorrect logical statements. When you have one error you will keep on building on that error and then everything that comes from that original error will be untrue.
Quote B
Logic really is the art of going wrong with confidence. Since a logical statement is created by logical premises it will always seem correct despite if it really is or isn't. Logical statements are made and then others feed off of these logical statements to reach conclusions. But if one of the premises made at one point is incorrect then the conclusion will not be correct. In fact it will be wrong due to a false statement that no one can prove is really false because it seems so logical that it is very difficult to prove if it isn't. If the person who reaches a logical conclusion from other logical premises assumes that the statements are correct do to things like deductive reasoning then that person will be confident in their answer. Even if it is incorrect, they will not realize it and be sure that their conclusion is indisputable right because it is backed by logic. Since all logic is not correct, it can lead to the art of going wrong with confidence. Causing confident people to be wrong with their ideas that are based on logical statements that are not really accurate.
“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence"
Logic is a tricky thing. I can either help one's argument if they use it correctly, or it can make them look like a fool when used incorrectly. Deductive reasoning can help people create sound, valid arguments, as long as their facts are straight. The most well formulated arguments are always those which use logic based on facts. This can cause issues to arise, however, because not everyone believes in the same "truths." This coincides with the quote because logic can be used as a tool to enforce a persons argument, which gives the arguer confidence. On the other hand, it can be the art of going wrong because people often use deductive reasoning incorrectly or their original truths aren't valid.
Yes, logic IS the art of going wrong with confidence.
In a logical argument, if the conclusion makes sense with the premises, it is said to be valid. If an argument is valid, it is hard to argue against. Validity does not reflect truthfulness, or factual data, but if premises go through steps to prove that a conclusion is valid, flaws in the argument cannot be found. How would one argue against an argument which has logical proof? Where is THEIR logical proof? Logical proofs are so hard to contradict because the premises flow together in a reasonable and LOGICAL order. By using deductive reasoning, all valid conclusions seem to make sense. The conclusions are solid.
The flaw in deductive reasoning comes when the conclusion is valid but not true. Statements that are not true are accepted under deductive reasoning, and are nearly impossible to disprove without inductive reasoning. This is exactly what going wrong with confidence is. Being incorrect, but confident. The confidence is the validity of the argument. The flaw of deductive reasoning is that it allows one to go wrong with confidence, as the quote says.
The flaw in deductive reasoning comes when the conclusion is valid but not true. Statements that are not true are accepted under deductive reasoning, and are nearly impossible to disprove without inductive reasoning. This is exactly what going wrong with confidence is. Being incorrect, but confident. The confidence is the validity of the argument. The flaw of deductive reasoning is that it allows one to go wrong with confidence, as the quote says.
The Power of Logic and Proof. (B)
quote b.
This quote shows that Jowett thought that logic was not a science or an art but really a dodge. Science and art are very different. Scientists use facts, knowledge, and discovery, while artists use feelings, inspiration, and imagination. But if you had to put something in the category of art or science, it would probably fit in one of them. This quote however, says that logic does not fit in either of the categories. It says that logic is a dodge. It says that logic isn't facts or feelings. It says logic is deductive reasoning. Jowett is basically saying that he doesnt believe in logic, that logic is dodging the truth, and that logic should not be trusted.
Deductive reasoning is valid but its not always truthful. For example, if you say
I think that this quote is true. I think logic is completely a dodge because it doesn't always tell the truth and it doesn't fit in the categories of art or science, which I think everything else does. Logic is a way of thinking that some people use to prove an argument even though they don't have all the facts. They use deductive reasoning, which is not always true, and say that they are right. Logic is only a dodge and there is no way you can trust it.
This quote shows that Jowett thought that logic was not a science or an art but really a dodge. Science and art are very different. Scientists use facts, knowledge, and discovery, while artists use feelings, inspiration, and imagination. But if you had to put something in the category of art or science, it would probably fit in one of them. This quote however, says that logic does not fit in either of the categories. It says that logic is a dodge. It says that logic isn't facts or feelings. It says logic is deductive reasoning. Jowett is basically saying that he doesnt believe in logic, that logic is dodging the truth, and that logic should not be trusted.
Deductive reasoning is valid but its not always truthful. For example, if you say
- Everyone who eats cake is a quarterback.
- John eats cake.
- [Therefore,] John is a quarterback.
I think that this quote is true. I think logic is completely a dodge because it doesn't always tell the truth and it doesn't fit in the categories of art or science, which I think everything else does. Logic is a way of thinking that some people use to prove an argument even though they don't have all the facts. They use deductive reasoning, which is not always true, and say that they are right. Logic is only a dodge and there is no way you can trust it.
A. An art?
We've all heard the cliche "The best things in life are accidents." Why go in confidence if we know that all things in life are certain? Any second of any day, our circumstances may be altered drastically. I dont know about you, but I love not knowing what's going to happen to me today, or if i'm going to look like an idiot. So logic is no different. With Aristotle, he could make a statement, and even if it didnt look correct on the surface; challenge us to prove him wrong. More often than not, the statement will be logical, even if it disputes what we think to be true. That is where Aristotle's logic collides with Euclid's logic. I suppose I still haven't really reflected upon the quote, though. Euclid determined his postulates over 2,000 years ago, and they are still held as logical. We still refuse to prove him wrong, assuming we can, because we have held them in place for so long. Euclid went wrong with confidence and made a statement that we cant even prove to be true, he was therefore, in a sense, wrong. He had it perfected to an art, postulates that looked so logical, we just assumed them to be the norm. Now with Aristotle, going wrong with confidence seems more like a stubborness than art. The statement doesn't seem to make much sense, well, he would simply say "Prove it." Such near-sighted tactics may seem annoying, but he is in fact right. If we are implored to prove logic for Aristotle why not do the same for Euclid? Wrong. Euclid's postulates have been in place for centuries, they have to be correct or someone would have challenged them by now. Right? Maybe not.
Logic = D, all of the above.
b) Well, let's approach this systematically or else we will get confused. This quotes compares logic to three different concepts, each of which must be properly defined for us to make a proper comparison.
First: Science. According to the Gale Canadian Dictionary, science is the knowledge of general facts, laws, and relationships that is obtained through systematic observation and experiment, especially as applied to the physical world and the phenomena associted with it. In other words, science is the result of analysis and synthesis of observations that were systematically gathered.
Second: Art. There is very little concensus on what art truly is. The definition that should be agreed on is that art is physical concretization of an abstraction that comments on the human condition.
Third: Dodge. The act of avoiding something deemed hostile. Used when something was a close call, unlike escape, which does not specify how the circumstances' stakes as clearly.
These are the definitions I am sticking to. If you disagree with the above, you will disagree with what is written below.
So, first thing's first. Is logic science? Is logic knowledge? Knowledge is certainty. However, as Euclid inadvertently demonstrated, very little is certain. More than 2000 years later, and we cannot prove his 5th postulate. In fact, we are unable to prove the first 4 postulates. However, these postulates are still accepted. Why? Because, like with scientific conclusions, careful systematic observations and the subsequent synthesis and analysis of these observations has lead us to accept these postulates as certain. So, is logic science? In the very least, it is strikingly similar.
Is logic art? It can be argued that logic is the concretization of our need to understand our world and predict the outcome of events. It is a testament to our thirst for truth, embodied in a system of rules. Is logic art? It seems so.
Is logic a dodge? A dodge from what? Benjamin Jowett seems to be suggesting that logic is avoiding the "fact" that nothing can be proven. Because logic bases itself on premises that we cannot prove, but we just accept as true, logic does not get us any closer to the truth. Just take Euclid's postulates. They are all accepted, and yet we can't come up with mathematical proofs that justify them. Logic overlooks that flaw, dodges it, to help us cling on to something real. Is logic a dodge? Yes.
And somehow, I have managed to prove that logic is all of these things (and very systematically at that too). How is this possible? I think logic can be all of these things. Logic is a creation of our own intellect. Hence, the way it is understood depends on perspective. One can argue that it was created for us to diehl with the problem of the sophists' belief in the subjectivity of truth. This seems to support the ideas of logic as art and a dodge. That same one may also argue that logic is now being used to understand our world in a systematic, scientific way. Truly, logic can be all of these things and there is no contradiction. A can equal B, C, and D because the square root of 1 can be negative 1 or positive 1. Logic is no exception.
First: Science. According to the Gale Canadian Dictionary, science is the knowledge of general facts, laws, and relationships that is obtained through systematic observation and experiment, especially as applied to the physical world and the phenomena associted with it. In other words, science is the result of analysis and synthesis of observations that were systematically gathered.
Second: Art. There is very little concensus on what art truly is. The definition that should be agreed on is that art is physical concretization of an abstraction that comments on the human condition.
Third: Dodge. The act of avoiding something deemed hostile. Used when something was a close call, unlike escape, which does not specify how the circumstances' stakes as clearly.
These are the definitions I am sticking to. If you disagree with the above, you will disagree with what is written below.
So, first thing's first. Is logic science? Is logic knowledge? Knowledge is certainty. However, as Euclid inadvertently demonstrated, very little is certain. More than 2000 years later, and we cannot prove his 5th postulate. In fact, we are unable to prove the first 4 postulates. However, these postulates are still accepted. Why? Because, like with scientific conclusions, careful systematic observations and the subsequent synthesis and analysis of these observations has lead us to accept these postulates as certain. So, is logic science? In the very least, it is strikingly similar.
Is logic art? It can be argued that logic is the concretization of our need to understand our world and predict the outcome of events. It is a testament to our thirst for truth, embodied in a system of rules. Is logic art? It seems so.
Is logic a dodge? A dodge from what? Benjamin Jowett seems to be suggesting that logic is avoiding the "fact" that nothing can be proven. Because logic bases itself on premises that we cannot prove, but we just accept as true, logic does not get us any closer to the truth. Just take Euclid's postulates. They are all accepted, and yet we can't come up with mathematical proofs that justify them. Logic overlooks that flaw, dodges it, to help us cling on to something real. Is logic a dodge? Yes.
And somehow, I have managed to prove that logic is all of these things (and very systematically at that too). How is this possible? I think logic can be all of these things. Logic is a creation of our own intellect. Hence, the way it is understood depends on perspective. One can argue that it was created for us to diehl with the problem of the sophists' belief in the subjectivity of truth. This seems to support the ideas of logic as art and a dodge. That same one may also argue that logic is now being used to understand our world in a systematic, scientific way. Truly, logic can be all of these things and there is no contradiction. A can equal B, C, and D because the square root of 1 can be negative 1 or positive 1. Logic is no exception.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Blog Post 4: The Power of Logic and Proof
In light of our lessons on Aristotelian logic and Euclid’s use of it, reflect on one of the following quotations:
a. by American writer, critic, and naturalist J.W. Krutch: “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”
or
b. by English scholar and theologian Benjamin Jowett: “Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge.”
The best responses will discuss both the inherent strengths and weaknesses of deductive reasoning.
POST DUE: Monday, January 11 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Thursday, January 14 by the start of class.
Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.
a. by American writer, critic, and naturalist J.W. Krutch: “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”
or
b. by English scholar and theologian Benjamin Jowett: “Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge.”
The best responses will discuss both the inherent strengths and weaknesses of deductive reasoning.
POST DUE: Monday, January 11 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Thursday, January 14 by the start of class.
Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)