POSTING FOR QUESTION #4 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 4 (ON LOGIC) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 4 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

LATE CREDIT FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE, SINCE QUARTER 2 HAS ENDED.

THANKS,

Mr. B

Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence

I believe logic is the art of going wrong with confidence becuase if your confident and strong. any argument you make will be logical if your smart and confident in your answer. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. if one confidentaly backs up their argument the logic has aken place.

"Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge"

I agree with this quote. Logic is used mostly in intellectual arguments or as we have seen in math class. It is very hard to argue with a valid conclusion because it followed the "rules".
For example:
A is B
B is C
therefore, A is c
This example followed the rules of the premises and is Valid. However, this does not make sense. This is where deductive reasoning falls short. We can not use logic in every situation because sometimes our common sense is what we should use. People would start to use logic in places where it shouldn't be used. We all know that A is not C. Benjamin Jowett has reason to say people are using logic as a dodge.

B“Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge.”

I agree with the quote.

Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence

i think that just because it logical it is true. i mean you can manipulate anything you think into being logical if your confident enought with your answer. like if im set on beliving that all apples are red because ive never seen a green apple doesnt mean im wrong and i have both truth and validity to it. you have to think the anwser is true to give it logic

A. "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence"

There are two parts of logic: truth and validity. At first glance, it seems to be more than possible to have both of these aspects; after all, there must be some statements that everyone can agree are true, and there must be a way to combine these statements that allows the creation of a new and unflinchingly true statement.

Let us start with the second aspect of logic, validity, in our examination. Aristotle created the art of syllogisms, the method of combining statements universally acknowledged to be true (premises) to establish new statements that must therefore also be acknowledged as truth. If one followed the syllogism rules he (discovered? created?), one could prove any point one wanted. This seems to make sense: If all of A is B, and all of B is C, then therefore all of A is C. If we accept the premises (all of A is B, all of B is C) of as truth, I doubt many people could successfully argue that the conclusion (all of A is C) is incorrect.

This is from where the "confidence" part of the quote comes. If your premises are correct and you follow the rules of logic, then you can confidently say that your conclusions are correct. (Hm, there seems to be a syllogism of sorts in my previous sentence... Let's hope it's not too invalid.)

So far, the possibility of logic to be right has relied on a very big "if": the ability for any premise to be universally and unequivocally true. It is a question that philosophers, theologians, scientists, and mathematicians (the names "Euclid" and "Lobachevski" ring any bells?) have grappled with for ages. Some people may think that of course there are unquestionably true premises: two parallel lines will never touch each other. They say that such statements are self evidently true, and by slowly building off of these sorts of premises all sorts of arguments may be made.

Now, these arguments may be valid and may appear to be true, but will we ever really *know* if something is true? If a statement is self evidently true, it's a statement that can't be proven, and if it can't be proven, how can we ever know for a fact that it's true? The answer is, we can't. We can only instinctually believe that they're true, and the whole point of logic is to eliminate instinctual belief in favor of hard, cold, scientific proof. There will always be a challenge to any premise, and if we can't prove a premise, how are we supposed let it go and believe that it's self evidently true? These premises are possibilities, and usually very likely ones, but we can't ever definitively know their truthfulness.

Our logical arguments may be valid, sound arguments that would be true if the premises were true. However, no premise can ever unequivocally be proven true, and therefore any logical argument may be considered (at least partly) false. An arguer can be confident, but they can't be definitively correct.

I agree with the first one that logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. With logical proofs, you can prove many things to be right, even if they are false. Things that seem logical can also be false. This is how people can argue things that they know are wrong, but can still make a logical argument. Or, how people can preform actions that seem like bad ideas to us, but to the person preforming them seem logical.