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

"A"

I agree with J.W. Krutch when he says that, "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Philosophers such as Aristotle and Euclid both had a lot of faith in what they believed in when coming to their own conclusions. From Aristotle's rules on logic to Euclid when proving the basic principles of geometry. When we had to make up logical problems in class we went in with the intent of making the logical problems truthful, especially because we've never really studied logic in depth before. You have to have confidence in what you write down even if you know you may not be right.

A

Logic is not one going wrong with confindence, I believe that the author of this quote finds logic as a way to unrealistically explain something. I believe that with a complete argument, logic can be used to fully argue and explain points simpler. With logic a complex argument can be simplified into corresponding points that can be easily explained. Many points are better explained with this idea of using logic.

A

“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

I agree with this statement because you can almost never get something completely correct the first time around. Mastering something involves trail and error. My coach used to tell us that even if we didn't know the play that was called to do it 100%. I think the same applies for logic. When trying to prove something logical or making a logical argument you have to do it with confidence. Even if your statement may be wrong you are trying to prove to others that your statement is correct even if it means doing something wrong. Logical statements aren't always true.

A.

Logic is simply the result of taking ideas that we believe to be true and using reasoning to create a solid argument that can not be proved wrong. This definition of logic seems pretty logical itself untill you take into account the fact that just because something is commonly believed to be true does not necessarily mean it is a fact regardless of whether anyone can prove it to be incorrect or not. This is why I agree that "logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Logic is based on confidence that one's ideas are factual, but because we are only human it is impossible to prove whether anything is truly a fact or just a well-proven theory. Therefore logic can produce good arguments and reasoning, but I do not think it can ever really produce facts.

quote a

I agree with the statement “logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.” As we learned in class, there are rules governing what is logical and what is illogical. A logical statement can be seen as valid because it follows these rules. However, the statement could have an untrue premise. The person who said the statement would seem logical and correct when in truth they were completely wrong. You could be being logical but wrong. You however sound confident because you are making an argument.

“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

I agree with J.W Krutch in that logic is not necessarily true, just something that one can defend. The concept of logic is based more around what is more likely to be true than what actually is, and I think that judging things based on logic is generally a smart way to do so.
Unfortunately, people can disagree on the terms of what is or is not logical, and so being overly concerned with logic can pose a problem, especially in, say, a social situation where human emotions can conflict with logic.

Quote A

I usually associate Logic as being the truth. J.W. Krutch on the other hand feels the opposite by saying “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.” meaning that logic is not true. What J.W. Krutch is saying is that you can be logical and wrong. Many people think as i thought that logic needs to be truthful therefore disagreeing with this statement. But when reading this statement, I think back to what we have learned in class which is validity vs truth. With this knowledge I agree with J.W. Krutch's statement because I view logic as a type of argument and we learned that an argument can be valid and also false. Logic is mainly how you explain your self and as long as you can explain yourself it does not matter weather it is true or not.

Quote A

American writer, critic, and naturalist J.W. Krutch once said “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.” While I certainly don't believe that logic is solely the art of going wrong, I do believe that confidence is a big part of logic and that while logic may prove validity, it does not necessarily always prove truth. Over the past week or so I have learned the difference between validity and truth. Before going more in depth with the issue, i always sort of regarded validity and truth as the same thing. I now know, however, that something can be valid but not true. Deductive reasoning seems to instill confidence in people because it makes sense, but that doesn't mean it is the truth. A conclusion is drawn from two premises that are accepted as true by the reasoner based on his or her knowledge and experiences, but because the truth of these premises are based on the individual, they do not have to be true. For example there was a psych study done in which researchers tried to convince people that brushing your teeth was bad. Now, we all know that's not true, but when presented with a logical explanation and maybe some statistics, one would be surprised at the number of people who actually believed that brushing your teeth was harmful. The statement was proven to these people to be valid by logic and deductive reasoning, but it still wasn't the truth. So while confident in their logic, these people were still wrong.

Quote A

“Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

When I think of things being logical, I don't often associate them with being "wrong" as well. However, after learning what we have over the past week or two, it has become clear that yes, things that are logical can also be wrong. But I wouldn't say that everything logical is wrong, because that has also been proven false. It's difficult for me to agree or disagree with the quote -- but with the knowledge that I have obtained recently about validity, I would rather agree with the quote. I agree because an action that has been performed could be viewed as wrong, but it can sometimes be explained using logic. And once something has been proven with logic, it is hard to disagree with any other reason besides the personal belief that it was wrong. If someone has done something wrong, but can explain it logically, it's hard to put up a valid argument, even if the wrong do-er knows their actions were not pointed north on the moral compass. Therefore, yes, logic can be viewed as explaining something that is "wrong" in a way that makes it seem like it could be right.

A

I agree with the statment "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Logic is made up of reasonable judgements and answers can not just be stumbled apon. From experience I know in order to persuade others one has too explan how they got to their conclustion. In math class our answers are not correct unless we can justify them. And even if our answers are wrong as long as we can justify them we get some kind of credit. I think having the wrong answer and explaning it is better then having an answer and saying just because.

Quote A

"Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." What did J.W. Krutch mean by this statement? Is logical thinking truly an art? Is it "wrong"? What J.W. Krutch means is that using logic to prove something is true doesn't always work. There are several rules governing the distribution of terms and the validity of an argument. However, the structure is flawed. This is because it is assumed that if the premises are true, so is the conclusion. But there are no absolutely true premises, instead, we decide whether or not they are true. Therefore, one could think that because his argument is valid in his mind, it must be true. However, just because an argument seems valid doesn't make it true. Another weakness about logic is that the conclusions derived from logical arguments are not new truths, as they are sometimes taken, but rather the premises reworded together. I agree with J.W. Krutch's statement because logic makes people believe that something is an absolute truth, even when it isn't. When someone believes something to be true, they are confident in their belief, regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong. Thus, logic can be incredibly misleading, although it is believable.

Question A

Logic is the art going wrong with confidence? Not always. It certainly is being right with confidence and proper support of the validity of an argument. Like we discussed in class, anything can be true, but there must be a valid argument behind that truth. Using logic to go wrong with confidence means that you have validity in your argument even if it isn't true. So yes, while logic is the art of going wrong with confidence, it does not necessarily mean we are always going wrong with confidence. Or at least we are not intending to be wrong. After all, who starts an argument for the sheer sake of being wrong? Even if we end up wrong in our argument we establish validity and (questionable) truth in our premises. But the bottom line is no one intends to be wrong.

quote a.

J.W. Krutch: “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

While this quote may be portrayed in many different lights and argued from many different sides, I believe that is is true. My reasoning behind this is completely based off of the teachings of logic and validity of humanities class. Without my knowledge obtained in humanities, my take on this quote would probably be different. However, since i know a little more about validity, my opinion about this quote is stronger. I do think that "logic is the art of going wrong with confidence" because it is possible to have a valid, logical statement that is false. We have seen many examples in class of these untrue, yet legitimate arguments. Provided, one would certainly be confident if they knew their statement was valid, even if it wasn't true. I also agree with the part of the statement that refers to logic as an "art". It takes a good deal of skill and composure to map out a valid statement and remain confident even if the statement were not true. All in all, I agree with J.W. Krutch's statement that "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.”

Quote A Responce

Aristotle and Euclid both made great uses of logic. One came up with deductive reasoning and the other wrote the “Elements” that has become the basics of geometry. But nowadays their deductive reasoning seems somewhat weak. And that is the main problem with logic, it just analyzes the statements but it does not evaluate their validity. As J.W. Krutch said, “Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.” As we learned in class, logic is not always correct even when a person is truly confident of their logic. Take the example of Euclid’s Proposition 1, where the equilateral triangle ABC is made from a straight line. A confident person can assume that his logic is in fact correct. But Euclid did not demonstrate its validity, because what if line A and B meet at point E before reaching point C. Then the triangle would not be equilateral as Euclid claimed but an isosceles. With logic, however, we are able to improve our arguments and evaluate the arguments of others. And I think that is one of the greatest benefits we can get from it.

I'm not wrong, just look at this logic! (Response A)

Logic is so powerful because it is, well, logical. As we have seen in syllogisms, a statement's conclusion can be something we all perceive to be wrong, but it does not break any of the rules of syllogisms. It is very difficult to argue with good logic, because the most we can often say is "well, it is obviously just wrong!". If a statement does not break any rules, but is wrong in our point of view, how do we prove it is wrong? Simple. You must also question the rules that have been set up this logic. Of course, an argument of logic can become useless if we do not agree on what is logical and what is not.  The importance of logic is less in its power to state that which is true, and more in its power to persuade and state that which is reasonable. The most powerful logic begins with agreeable, factual statements to make its conclusion. Even if your conclusion is not true, the more reasonable your first two statements, the more likely you will persuade your reader to believe your conclusion is factual. This quote does not state that a reader will always be persuaded by logic, though. If a conclusion is something a reader believes to be false, it is not too likely they will be persuaded. For example, no matter how solid your logic, I will never believe that gravity doesn't exist. What this quote does argue is that logic is going wrong with confidence. As long as you feel your logic is sound, you will believe you are correct.

Quotation A

When looking up the definition for logic many words are used that make up the definition. I did find a definition that says that logic is "convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts." Based on this definition I believe that "logic is the art of going wrong with confidence." Unlike in J.W. Krutch's quotation, Benjamin Jowett doesn't believe that logic is neither a science or an art, but merely a quick avoidance of the wrong answers to get to the right answers. However, as Aristotelian and Euclid have both shown within their methods to reach logic, there are certain techniques and steps you have to follow before coming to a conclusion. When Benjamin Jowett says "..but a dodge" I feel as though he is saying that logic is something that comes involuntarily and is just an accident. There is no thought going into coming to an answer, you just happen to miss the wrong answers. However, when you share the process of how you've come to this logic to other people you have to have confidence and be persuasive. I know when I was learning the explanations behind Aristotle and Euclid to get to their answers I often just accepted the answers because they were forceful and long answers. You have to have confidence to be persuasive to back up what you have to say and be able to be sure which conclusions are wrong and which ones are right. If your not confident in what you have to say it's easy for others to question you.

Quote "B" Response

Benjamin Jowett says that "Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge". In today's world, people would like to get things accomplished as fast as possible. Thats where logic comes in. There are a lot of people that use logic to get out of situations that doesn't require a lot of time yet effective. If you wake up from bed and you eat breakfast, and the next thing you know you have leave to go to school. Your mom tells you that you have to make up your bed. Most people won't don't because it will take time and you don't want to be late for school. So you use logic and by telling your mom that you will do it when you get home. You don't want to take the time to make up your bed. Although logic analyzes states and does not evaluate the validity of those statements and what science does is trying to show the proof behind theories with reasoning. There are some people that actually want to know how things are done and there will probably some people that will stay after the bell rings just to figure out how the math problem is done even if they are late. But lets be real, most people don't want to go through that entire process because it will take too much time. Thats why people use simple logic to get out of situations that doesn't allow them to take too much time. That proves Jowett's statement of how logic is a "dodge".

B

English scholar and theologian Benjamin Jowett once said, "Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge". According to my dictionary, the word dodge is 1. verb: to elude or evade by a sudden shift of position or by strategy, 2: to use evasive methods. Therefore, to sum up Mr. Jowett's theory, to use logic is to take the easy way out to avoid some form of future consequences. However, using logic is not always the easy way out.
The good aspect of the statement is that looking at logic this way, more natural than something you can learn, gives humans a lot of credit. We like coming to conclusions as fast as possible and avoiding conflicts, and using inborn defense systems is the easiest way to get things done and avoid conflict. There is no science or art to making these decisions. Say you are walking along a road and you come to a cross road. The path to the left has a rainbow, birds singing, and little animals playing with each other. The path to the left is very dark, and there is almost no sign of life. Naturally, people will want to go to the one to the left with the playful animals and sunshine because it is less threatening. There is no science or art to knowing that. It is just common sense, a trait that although not all humans use all the time, they most certainly have. The left path is a dodge of the dangers ahead. The easy way out.
However, you aren't always trying to dodge something when you use logic. Sometimes using logic puts you in a difficult situation, because some people choose not to take the easy way out. While most people would choose the path to the left, there is no reason to say that some people would choose the path to the right because if they are looking to be more adventurous then that is the more logical choice. They aren't dodging danger, they are running straight through it, and people do this in everyday life situations as well.
Therefore, in my opinion, although it is a good attempt at trying to explain logic, it has too many flaws for me to agree.

B.

Like Isabel, when I hear the word "dodge" it reminds me of avoiding something. It's true that logic is "dodging" the truth in someways. I disagree with Benjamin Jowett when he says Logic is not science. Science is something that is only finally excepted by all, after many experiments, facts and people who have proven it. There is too much information to be discovered in something scientific for something to be said to work. Science is something that needs to be accurate and is shown through logic. However, I agree with Jowett when he says art is not logic. Art is something that is individual to the creator. Abstract art can be completely obscure to outsider, yet to the artist, it could be exactly what they intended. There is no necessary universal idea of what is "logical" in a painting, because everyone has a different idea on what is logical and what is not.

Deductive reasoning is defiantly an effective way to try to understand a situation. You lay out your argument in a specific format and can sort through your thoughts, using the rules of formating. But, the problem with deductive reasoning is one could agree something is very "logical" and the next person can totally disagree. Deductive reasoning involves evaluating and agrument that can be either valid or invalid. But what is valid, thought to be correct, to some can defiantly be wrong to another. The point is that one's opinion may contribute to what they believe is "valid" or "invalid". That is why deductive reasoning is very said to be "true" and "false", because it can be different to all. Something "Logical" is something that makes sense and the issue with logic is that everyone thinks differently.

I am wrong, but confident.

While I do not think that it always is, I think that J.W. Krutch is right that logic can be "the art of going wrong with confidence." At its base, logic is forming connections between objects or occurrences in order to justify or predict outcomes, something that sounds, well, logical. It is often said that while two of the same thing is a coincidence that three connotes a pattern, and, again, that makes logical sense - but it is not the end-all-be-all. When assessing something, anything, it is important to not only look at the logic based on facts, but to look at each thing as an individual as well in order to form a more holistic view. Logic does, often, work and make sense, but in the cases where it doesn't quite follow or apply, those using logic have the excuse of "Well, logic dictates..." to hide behind; a false sense of confidence that can often fool others into assuming that they're right.

quote B

When I hear the word “dodge,” I think of avoidance. Referring to logic as a dodge as Jowett does makes sense in a way because logic is fact, and at times “dodges” any untruths. It is simple and straightforward. However, Jowett might be wrong in saying that logic “is neither a science or an art” because science is all about logic, whether a theory is correct or not, a chemical reaction occurs or not, and so on. To me logic and science seem to go hand in hand. Art and logic on the other hand, are definitely not one in the same. I agree with Jowett here because unlike logic, art has nothing to do with fact. It is a means of self expression. Right and wrong do not exist when it comes to art. Logic “dodges” opinions and interpretations, leaving room for only cold hard facts. For example, Picasso’s work is known for depicting people unrealistically, as multicolored and shaped, some with one eye, others with multiple limbs. This is all completely illogical, and yet it is art. Jowett’s view of logic is partially true in my opinion, yet there are still some questionable factors.

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.