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.