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.
Logical things help prove the validity of your aregument. So can they be considered correct even when ones argument lacks evidence, even though there logic has been looked upon as correct for a vast amount of time? I agree with your statement rather then trying to go against what sounds accurate, we find it easier to nod our heads and agree. Though are these symptoms of laziness? Lack of confidence in our opinions and reasonings? Despite the fact, if one challenges ones logic saying its invalid and proves it to be valid, would this change anything? Would this affect what we learn in the future?
ReplyDeletePerhaps people just find it easier to agree with logic because it makes the most sense? Generally, if a lot of people look at something a certain way, it is an indicator that that is a good way of thinking, not that everyone is a mindless person trying to avoid thinking for themselves.
ReplyDeleteIf a person feels more confident than they should, surely that is due to a logical fallacy on their part in thinking themselves smarter than they are.
I do agree with your point that logical things are considered correct when we have no reason to prove that is wrong because as a society we generally don't want to challenge what we think is right because it is easy for us to just agree with what is being said. With that being said confidence does play a key role in logic because you have to be confident that your logic is valid
ReplyDelete