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.