Sunday, January 10, 2010
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)