“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.
It seems like you're saying that validity is the only part of logic; that in order to have "good" logic, you need only to have a syllogism that follows the rules. However, Aristotle said that validity isn't the only key part of a good logical argument; truthful premises are just as important.
ReplyDeleteThe example you use is valid, but it's not good logic. All dogs are not black (besides your Ringo, my Charlotte can attest to that, too), therefore your first premise is false, leading you to your false conclusion.
So, would you say that logic based off of valid reasoning and "truthful" (notice the quotations) premises is still "going wrong with confidence?"
Daniel, i have not been to your house in over a year, but i do remember that ringo is not black. My only memory of him is him taking my sock. Anyways, i thought you make a good point about how a postulate doesnt need to make sense to be logical. I thought you had a reasonably sound interpretation of Aristotle's logic, despite a shaky first premise. However, i was also wondering if the same could hold true for Euclid's logic? Was he going wrong with confidence in making 5 postulates, which have neither been proven or disproven?
ReplyDelete