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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Haha yeah, I agree with you on how confidence is a weird word when talking about logic. I also agree with you that proving a logical point brings confidence. But if you're using logic in the wrong way and still feeling confident, then yeah you're going to end up looking like a fool which is how logic can be considered "the art of going wrong with confidence." It's really up to whether you know what you're talking about or not
ReplyDelete