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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree completely that logic neglects to address the details of the situation. Logic can become complicated because the "truths" in the proofs arent always really true to us. This causes conflict because people can use correct logic, to prove something incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteActually, Ingrid, you're not using enough logic. If you look carefully in the law books (you take law, right?), I'm sure that it mentions something about ambulances being able to run red lights. It's a fact, an axiom, a postulate.
ReplyDeleteBesides, your logical structure is kind of weak, because of that first premise. Try this: Running a red light is breaking the law. This fits your conclusion symmetrically and it doesn't alter your meaning, right?
Remember how we learned about the square of opposition? Yeah. There are two categories that are called Universal and Particular. Let's look back at your first premise: It is illegal to run a red light. Is this statement Universal or Particular. Think about it. Well, if it is FACT that an ambulance can legally run a red light. It is not illegal for all. Hence, that premise is particular. Do you see how the logic makes sense now?
Interesting analysis of the syllogism here. Long story short, the clearest way to state your first premise is, "[All vehicles] running a read light are breaking the law. Once you state the idea clearly, you can see it is flawed because this premise is not commonly accepted (you need to prove it and would have a hard time doing so). We are all aware that plenty of vehicles are allowed to run a red lights.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it is not up to logic to show the details of the situation, it is up to the person using logic to use it correctly. If you start with premises that aren't commonly accepted or that you can't prove, you're logical process is flawed, but logic itself is not.