Can logic be proven?

Question

When you logically prove something and someone doesn't believe you, they will often say "there is a higher logic" implying that the way our logic works is not true.

Godel's incompleteness theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem) tells us that there are true but unprovable statements and that basically anything proven with logic is uncertain correct?

However, his theorem was created with logic! Is his theorem even certain? How can we escape this loop and show that any "higher logic" has just as much uncertainty as our own? It seems impossible to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem

Sorry, this site screwed the link up.

Answer 1

Logic by itself is the proof . Like our physical self is the proof of our being man/woman. Logic is the juxtaposition of different situation and circumstances which reinforces the statement / fact . Sometimes , this logic may elude us , but does not remain out of reach ever .

Answer 2

Logic=reasoning

Religion=beliefs

There's much to argue here, but when you break it down - the proof is in the pudding once the living proof is shown. Logic is just a way of thinking and just a belief/somewhat of a prediction even after the conclusion/the math is finally solved.

NO!

Answer 3

Not in all the cases. I am student of astrology to which I was attracted due to curiosity. It is said that astrology is based on Logic. i.e impact of various planets on the human beings based on their radical position at the time of birth of one individual. To days astrological conclusions based on the effects of different planets are actually been drawn from the case studies. They are not concluded by any single person thus they are the logical conclusion still they are not believed. In fact the Astrology is not yet considered as Science by many. And hence we can say that logic cannot be proved.

Answer 4

Logic can be used to prove the existence of god just as easily as the non-existence of god. However, the proofs are basically worthless. Logical arguments are only as valid as the underlying premises, and it is those premises that must be proven or disproven to find any worth in the resulting irrelevant logical proofs.

Answer 5

I think the fallacy is thinking that all truth is atainable through logic. A great deal of the study of philosophy centers around trying to find truth using a variety of " tools". One might also say that constucting senerios that show the limitations of logic doesn't devalue the use of it in the physical universe.

Answer 6

If logic were proven logically, that would be circular reasoning and therefore illogical.

I guess that's why someone wrote a critique of pure reason.

Answer 7

no.never!