SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG POST 3 (ON LOGIC) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO THE QUESTION OR POST COMMENTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.
IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.
IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.
THANKS,
Mr. B
Friday, December 24, 2010
Boswell's Response to the Group
Since a lot of the posts were similar, I wanted to respond to everyone in a single posting.
The one thing that I was surprised to see missing in your posts was the idea that most people don't even know what logic IS. They merely know how to sound logical. How well did you understand it until I drilled Aristotle's logical approach to discussing categories into you? Isn't much of the problems we have with people making logical arguments is due to the fact that their arguments aren't very logical? How many people could explain why one of these was logical and one of these was not?
All A is B.
All B is C.
Therefore, all A is C.
All A is B.
All B is C.
Therefore, all C is A.
If we all understood that there are RULES for the way we INFER things, wouldn't we be "right" more often in our arguments?
Many of you did bring up the idea that logic is more concerned with validity than truth, but are these things so distinct? If truth is something we discover, then we're not going to know we've found it if we're not methodical about it, right?
I was intrigued by the idea that logic is missing a spiritual element. I think there is something to that. Our capacity to understand life is limited in that humans are neither perfectly logical nor perfectly emotional. We rarely have all the facts; our perceptions are skewed by experience and by our natural tendency to stereotype and self-affirm. Our objectivity is often clouded, and we are thus apt to use premises that only seem certain to draw conclusions that only seem certain. Science tries very hard to be objective and has many controls in place to make this happen, but the bottom line is there is an infinite number of hypothesis out there. Until each an everyone is tested, science can't be certain about anything.
Having said that, I'd be cautious about dismissing knowledge as a grey area where nothing is certain. For starters, that statement doesn't hold water: if nothing is certain, even the statement that nothing is certain is uncertain. It doesn't get us anywhere. What's important to understand is that certainty is elusive (and we should remember that when we try to convince people that we're right).
Finally, a few of you said Euclid was "wrong" somehow. That needs some rethinking. His assumption about the 5th postulate being true has never been proven wrong any more than it has been proven right. No one has come up with a way to prove it, that's all. Lobechevski was trying to prove it by showing it's opposite would create contradictions. As it turned out, it didn't create any. So now we have two ideas about parallel lines that are both possibly true. Which takes us back to the idea that certainty is elusive.
The one thing that I was surprised to see missing in your posts was the idea that most people don't even know what logic IS. They merely know how to sound logical. How well did you understand it until I drilled Aristotle's logical approach to discussing categories into you? Isn't much of the problems we have with people making logical arguments is due to the fact that their arguments aren't very logical? How many people could explain why one of these was logical and one of these was not?
All A is B.
All B is C.
Therefore, all A is C.
All A is B.
All B is C.
Therefore, all C is A.
If we all understood that there are RULES for the way we INFER things, wouldn't we be "right" more often in our arguments?
Many of you did bring up the idea that logic is more concerned with validity than truth, but are these things so distinct? If truth is something we discover, then we're not going to know we've found it if we're not methodical about it, right?
I was intrigued by the idea that logic is missing a spiritual element. I think there is something to that. Our capacity to understand life is limited in that humans are neither perfectly logical nor perfectly emotional. We rarely have all the facts; our perceptions are skewed by experience and by our natural tendency to stereotype and self-affirm. Our objectivity is often clouded, and we are thus apt to use premises that only seem certain to draw conclusions that only seem certain. Science tries very hard to be objective and has many controls in place to make this happen, but the bottom line is there is an infinite number of hypothesis out there. Until each an everyone is tested, science can't be certain about anything.
Having said that, I'd be cautious about dismissing knowledge as a grey area where nothing is certain. For starters, that statement doesn't hold water: if nothing is certain, even the statement that nothing is certain is uncertain. It doesn't get us anywhere. What's important to understand is that certainty is elusive (and we should remember that when we try to convince people that we're right).
Finally, a few of you said Euclid was "wrong" somehow. That needs some rethinking. His assumption about the 5th postulate being true has never been proven wrong any more than it has been proven right. No one has come up with a way to prove it, that's all. Lobechevski was trying to prove it by showing it's opposite would create contradictions. As it turned out, it didn't create any. So now we have two ideas about parallel lines that are both possibly true. Which takes us back to the idea that certainty is elusive.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Blog Post 3
I think that J.W. Krutch may be somewhat correct when he says that "logic is the art of going wrong with confidence," but that his assertion doesn't apply in every situation. Going by logic doesn't always lead to "going wrong," and it absolutely doesn't always lead to going right. I think that what he may really mean is that logic gives people a false sense of security and confidence, whether it leads them the right or wrong way, and I agree. When one uses logic to come to a certain conclusion, and their argument is logically sound, he or she may take it as a given that their conclusion is therefore correct when actually one of their beginning assumptions may have been wrong. However, I think it's probably too much of a generalization to say that logic is always going to lead people to go wrong with confidence, because logic can be a useful tool in backing up sound arguments as long as the assumptions the logical statement is based off of are correct, and as long as the tool of logic is used in the right way.
Monday, December 20, 2010
"Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." by J.W. Krutch
My own interpretation of the quote above: The quote, by J.w. Krutch, suggests that logic in a sense does not exist but rather it is an idea or term that has a sense of confidence attached to it and therefore is believed to be logical and true. This logic may in, some cases actually be wrong, however the amount of legitamancy it is believed to have or the amount of confidence a society has about its accuracy makes the statement a logical one.
On the other hand, All logic was formed some way or another in order to progress as a society and create a system in which all can function. We must have some boundaries in order to survive and though this logic is quite possibly false, it is infact true because the society makes it true. A statement, in my opinion, can still be true if it is wrong because the society has accepted it as true and have functioned around it.
In my opinion it is very possibly that all logic is in fact false but we must accept it in order to progress as a human race. For example the Euclid logic asked us to simply accept certain logic in order to move forward in understanding Geometry however how can we ever truly know if what Euclid told us is true? We cant and therefor logic is often times ( or at least possibly) actually false however our society has built around such logic which in a way makes the logic in fact true.
Blog Post #3
When thinking about logic I try to believe that if something is logical it makes sense. After all logic dictates that, in the alphabet, A always comes after B and C comes next and so on and so forth. Logic is how we order ourselves by those few undeniable truths. If we didnt have those few rules nobody could agree on anything. For example if we didn't have the ABC rule I mentioned above nobody would be able to learn anything, maybe because one student learned that B always came after C while the student sitting next to him learned C always comes after B. We would never be able to agree on most things and would, in the worst case scenario, not advance as a society.
However, the quote "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." by J.W. Krutch got me thinking about the infallibility of those rules. One person could commit a terrible type of crime under the same logic that in his own mind is as simple and unbendable as the ABC rule. Everyone has different opinions on things. To a color blind person some colors may not exist or be other colors in their eyes. The only way a complicated claim can be logic is if you find someone else who agrees with you. If not then there will always be one loophole in your statement for someone else to exploit.
The conclusion that I have come to about logic is that outside of those few truths you are only truly right if someone agrees with what you are saying and/or you sound convincing enough to recruit people to your way of thinking. So you could go the wrong way, just make sure you're convincing about it.
However, the quote "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." by J.W. Krutch got me thinking about the infallibility of those rules. One person could commit a terrible type of crime under the same logic that in his own mind is as simple and unbendable as the ABC rule. Everyone has different opinions on things. To a color blind person some colors may not exist or be other colors in their eyes. The only way a complicated claim can be logic is if you find someone else who agrees with you. If not then there will always be one loophole in your statement for someone else to exploit.
The conclusion that I have come to about logic is that outside of those few truths you are only truly right if someone agrees with what you are saying and/or you sound convincing enough to recruit people to your way of thinking. So you could go the wrong way, just make sure you're convincing about it.
I agree with the statement made by american writer, critic, and naturalist J. W. Krutch's quote "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." I feel this way because today, people of this world dare not to challenge there human intelligence or stand up for any opposing logics in which the posses. For example, in today's society we go by principles that were established by other human beings, only for the fact that that has just how its been for centuries. By us doing so, we are not exercising the mind and brain itself on our logic. In other words, by abiding to other peoples logics, we have simply put down our confidence on what we think is right and wrong, etc. Having logic provides one with great confidence because for example in a scenario in which you are having an argument with another person, the logic that you provide and consume of with will offer you a great deal of confidence that the point of view you are defending is valid and effective.
Blog 3
“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”
Logic is the process of reasoning in a clear and capable manner. A logical syllogism consists of three phrases. Two individual premises are first stated, with the third being a conclusion that results from those first two premises. When perfectly constructed, the syllogism cannot be argued against. This type of confidence is powerful when used correctly. Still, there are many cases in which a logical syllogism can be used to create a falsehood even with full confidence in the argument. For example:
All apples are oranges.
All oranges are tomatoes.
Therefore, all apples are tomatoes.
While we all know that this is a false statement, it is still a perfectly logical syllogism. With the confidence I can put into any argument, I can still effectively make it logically sound no matter how ridiculous the substance of it is. However if the first two premises can be agreed upon, and when perfectly constructed, the syllogism’s logic cannot be denied.
Blog Resonse 3
“Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge.”
Science is the search for knowledge and understanding of the natural world. When we hear that something is scientifically proven we are most likely to believe that over "because i said so" reasoning. Our knowledge of the natural world is based on the carefully observed and consistent observations and experiments.
Art on the other hand is a persons personal interpretation of the world surrounding them. You cant be wrong in art because its a personal interpretation.
Logic on the other hand is neither one of these two. It is merely the analysis of the argument, it is not looking for the answer. It is dodging the search for the answer and is only analyzing the argument.
Blog Response 3
To assess the words of Benjamin Jowett, who said “Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge,” one must define science and art.
Science is generally accepted as knowledge based on facts that come from direct observations and experiments. Science is precise; it deals with life and questions in a systematic manner. Art is slightly more difficult to define – art takes its surroundings and observations and produces a thing in it of itself. Art does not claim to be sterile and fair, it is often imbedded with personal opinions and judgments based on intangible ideas such as aesthetics. The “art” of producing something, be it a painting, a sonnet, or a family strives towards an intangible ideal that can vary from individuals and cultures.
Assuming that Jowett defines art and science in a somewhat similar way, you now know that logic is not these things. It does not necessarily depend upon hard facts or the appealing nature of things. Unlike science, logic does not need to be experiment in order to prove theories. Unlike art, logic has no humane aspect that responds to stimuli and beauty.
One could argue against Jowett and say that logic is indeed a science and an art. Logic, as we all witnessed when testing syllogisms, can employ a set of standards or laws. In order for a statement to be logical and therefore valid, it must be preceded by two premises. The three statements have to meet certain requirements in a fashion similar to science which also must meet certain requirements – for example, all experiments must have independent, dependent, and control variables in order to be valid and prove something. Logic can be considered an art because it is a way of making sense of the world around you in a neat fashion. It responds to events and applies a unique approach to making sense.
I think the point of Jowett’s words is that by using logic, you conclude nothing and produce nothing. Rather than sticking to the factual side of information or more emotionally charged information, you waver in between by using logic. Logic can be seen as an excuse or cop out because a methodical approach is applied but there is no true meaning or evidence behind the logic. Science has the support of facts, experiments, concrete evidence to support it and help it hold weight. Art and the art of action have such an intangible humanness to it that it can impress ideas on others and also comes with a personal satisfaction. Logic offers none of these things, it is rather a dead end or a dodge in that the person employing logic fails to reach a decision.
Logic and
“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”
Euclid could be said to have gone wrong with confidence. He wrote about geometry and made hundreds of theorems based on a few propositions which most people would believe to be true. If these propositions are considered true the geometry all makes sense and there are no contradictions. It would not be prudent to assume from this that this must be the way the world works. Nicholas Lobachevski, in his Theory of Parallels proved that these propositions don't have to be true for geometry to make sense. He denied the fifth postulate in The Elements and ended up with different but equally valid conclusions about geometry.
This example illustrates that logic can lead someone to conclusions that aren't accurate. To come up with valid conclusions there have to be premises with which to work. Euclid no doubt made his premises based on what he had observed to start his logic of geometry off. But he has no proof for his propositions. You might say that he has based them on what he has observed. But as we have seen in our previous areas of study one cannot trust their senses entirely.
We see from geometry that logic is not the perfect tool for knowledge. The premises on which it is based are not certainly correct. Euclid based all of his knowledge on premises which aren't proven. he was sure that what he learned was absolutely true. But then Lobachevski proved he wasn't certainly correct. Euclid was 'wrong with confidence;' he firmly believed in what wasn't necessarily true. Another example of someone being wrong with confidence is someone who based all their beliefs on what someone else told them. Logic for them could lead to some terrible conclusions if they are being fed incorrect facts the whole time.
Euclid could be said to have gone wrong with confidence. He wrote about geometry and made hundreds of theorems based on a few propositions which most people would believe to be true. If these propositions are considered true the geometry all makes sense and there are no contradictions. It would not be prudent to assume from this that this must be the way the world works. Nicholas Lobachevski, in his Theory of Parallels proved that these propositions don't have to be true for geometry to make sense. He denied the fifth postulate in The Elements and ended up with different but equally valid conclusions about geometry.
This example illustrates that logic can lead someone to conclusions that aren't accurate. To come up with valid conclusions there have to be premises with which to work. Euclid no doubt made his premises based on what he had observed to start his logic of geometry off. But he has no proof for his propositions. You might say that he has based them on what he has observed. But as we have seen in our previous areas of study one cannot trust their senses entirely.
We see from geometry that logic is not the perfect tool for knowledge. The premises on which it is based are not certainly correct. Euclid based all of his knowledge on premises which aren't proven. he was sure that what he learned was absolutely true. But then Lobachevski proved he wasn't certainly correct. Euclid was 'wrong with confidence;' he firmly believed in what wasn't necessarily true. Another example of someone being wrong with confidence is someone who based all their beliefs on what someone else told them. Logic for them could lead to some terrible conclusions if they are being fed incorrect facts the whole time.
Blogpost #3
"Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge".”
blog response
“Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge.” Logic is the ability to place complete trust behind your ideas, and define them as knowledge. Logic is often considered to be an object that is gained/discovered through thorough investigation and knowledge of other similar facts. However, logic is obtained through placing complete faith in abstract ideas and relating them to a topic. An example of this, is the recently obtained remedies to common illnesses such as cancer. Though the cure has yet to be found, often times medicines that help aide cancer are discovered through the mixing of random chemicals and simply “hoping for the best”. Often times, though not always, most medicines are obtained through taking a dodge. This can also be proven through Euclid’s discovery of geometry. Euclid’s method of geometry was definitely a dodge. He used abstract ideas and common knowledge to collate ideas.
I also believe that not all knowledge is achieved through taking a dodge. There are some instances that involve serious investigation, analysis and reasoning to create a conclusion and obtain logic. An example of this is crime science analysis. A crime scene analysts uses distinct research to compare reasoning and gain logic behind their topic.
I also believe that not all knowledge is achieved through taking a dodge. There are some instances that involve serious investigation, analysis and reasoning to create a conclusion and obtain logic. An example of this is crime science analysis. A crime scene analysts uses distinct research to compare reasoning and gain logic behind their topic.
Blog Response 3
The best way I know how to describe the world/our existence is this: it’s all grey area. So, when we promote an opinion or idea we are inevitably incorrect in some capacity. How, then, do people convince others that they are right? How do they lobby their beliefs and get others to join their side? Confidence.
“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”
I agree with JW Krutch in this statement. Logic in the Aristotelian sense is the study of the argument. It is not the study of truth, or of fact, or even a measure of one’s knowledge. When you perfect your argument, you perfect your logic, regardless of how technically correct your idea is.
So it is the layout of your argument, the presentation of your ideas, (your “confidence”) which determines the success of your logic. Logical reasoning as we’ve learned it consists of a premise, another premise, and a conclusion. The difficult part is not composing a conclusion. The difficulty rests in getting your audience to agree with your premises.
If with my confidence I can convince my audience that
All red is green
and
All green is white,
then my audience will inevitably and unfailingly agree that all red is white.
Obviously that’s not true. But with the confidence I employed both in constructing my argument and delivering it, I have successfully convinced an audience that two completely separate colors are the same. That is effective reasoning.
So ultimately, we should not view a persuasive syllogism as “the truth”, but we can credit the composer with having the strength and confidence to win the argument.
Blog Post 3
I agree with J.W. Krutch's quote "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence" because the logic we see today we dare not to challenge it because it has been around society for such a long period of time. Logic does give people confidence because when you are arguing a certain point of view of a issue the logic you use will definitely make you feel confident that what you just said is indeed valid. As i pointed out earlier in society we don't really dare to attack some of the logic put out because we just want to agree with what we are told instead of thinking for ourselves and challenging it. I am not sure if logic is a type of art I do believe that logic does require confidence because you need to have confidence that your argument is valid even though it might not.
Blog Response #3
"Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence."
Obviously logic gives a person confidence, whatever the message or argument. Because of how precisely Aristotle mapped out his version of logic, and the way it all fits together, if someone sets up an argument with his method, the logic should be flawless, and therefore at least half of the reasoning should be flawless. For teh most part, Aristotle's logic is generally accepted today as the model of good reasoning, and syllogisms are still studied in law school today. Aristotelian logic being wrong would uproot much of our present society. That isn't to say that there is no way Aristotelian logic is false, but I find that it makes sense, especially in the context of our present society.
However, even if one takes Aristotle's logic as The Truth, it is only as good as the premises used themselves. As can be seen from Euclid's geometry, some premises are too strange to be taken as true--like postulate five, which Lobachevsky and others have tried to disprove. If postulate five were wrong, most of what Euclid concluded would be wrong, and then many of the theorems we take for truth would also be wrong. Krutch would be right that Euclid was wrong--but so confidently wrong that the rest of us believe him.
So, logic can be the art of going wrong with confidence, but only with faulty premises. If a premise is accepted and "right", however, logic should deliver someone to a correct answer. So it is probably more suitable to say that incorrect premises are the art of going wrong with confidence.
Obviously logic gives a person confidence, whatever the message or argument. Because of how precisely Aristotle mapped out his version of logic, and the way it all fits together, if someone sets up an argument with his method, the logic should be flawless, and therefore at least half of the reasoning should be flawless. For teh most part, Aristotle's logic is generally accepted today as the model of good reasoning, and syllogisms are still studied in law school today. Aristotelian logic being wrong would uproot much of our present society. That isn't to say that there is no way Aristotelian logic is false, but I find that it makes sense, especially in the context of our present society.
However, even if one takes Aristotle's logic as The Truth, it is only as good as the premises used themselves. As can be seen from Euclid's geometry, some premises are too strange to be taken as true--like postulate five, which Lobachevsky and others have tried to disprove. If postulate five were wrong, most of what Euclid concluded would be wrong, and then many of the theorems we take for truth would also be wrong. Krutch would be right that Euclid was wrong--but so confidently wrong that the rest of us believe him.
So, logic can be the art of going wrong with confidence, but only with faulty premises. If a premise is accepted and "right", however, logic should deliver someone to a correct answer. So it is probably more suitable to say that incorrect premises are the art of going wrong with confidence.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Blog Post 3 Response
I agree with J.W. Krutch when he said, "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Logical things are only considered correct when we have no other way to prove that it is wrong. Rather then trying to go against what sounds accurate, we find it easier to nod our heads and agree
with what is being "proven." Therefore, this instills a sense of false confidence in someone. Yet,
is it really "false" if it can not be proven any other way? I believe this question is what we ponder on a daily basis, yet, choose to look past. If everyone was constantly trying to provide evidence
that everyone in the world was wrong in their theories, we would have no progress in anything.
Although, I am not sure if I support his theory that logic is an art. Yes, it requires a certain way of thinking, but most of the time it is the most obvious information available.
Friday, December 17, 2010
BLOG POST #3: THE POWER OF LOGIC AND REASONING
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.”
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: Tuesday, December 21 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Thursday, December 23 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.”
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: Tuesday, December 21 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Thursday, December 23 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)