Through logic we build reasoning and proof. While investigating possible methods of problem solving, we use a method called “proof-search theory” (PST). PST starts of with one question: How is it possible to build a proof? Then it follows that: what is a tool for answering the question “how is it possible to build a proof?” Is it possible to use the concept of logical form as such a tool? How is it possible to use the concept of logical form for a proof-search?
These questions lead to further discussion – it can be done with the help of knowledge. It uses possibilities of the structure of logical form in order to expose the relevance of information for proof-search (inductive logic – forecasting events based upon known information). Then we can come up with laws and proofs for knowledge. We use logic to discover and investigate correct modes of reasoning in which the property of truth in preserved. Logic gives the answer for the question about correct reasoning – the correct reasoning is a proof. A proof is a way, and the only way, to judge whether a piece of information is a perception or knowledge (truth).
Through these, they allow me to give a positive answer to the above questions : it is possible to use logic for the building of derivations, because logic contains useful information for the proof-search. Proof-search enables us to explore new facts (knowledge) in known areas as a tool. Although not always true, logic gives us the method to analyse the importance of information gained.
However, logic has its limitations. Logic can explain a lot of phenomena in the natural world, e.g. Physics explains gravity, and biology explains the behaviours of living organisms. However, humans are not simply part of the animal kingdom. Humans are exceptionally supreme because we are not only governed by our physical constructions, but also our mind (i.e. emotions). There are many occasions where our physical needs tell us to do one thing, however our emotions will force us to go against our needs. For example, when we drank too much water and need a restroom break in the middle of the lesson, our emotion tells us that either wetting our pants or asking for permission from the teacher are unlikely to solve the problem, so we go against our call of nature and wait until the lesson ends.
To a deeper level, emotions can be classified into different categories: embarrassment, anger, despair, frustration and love. Scientists so far can only explain which parts of the brain contribute to such emotions, but yet they are unable to predict what are the consequences of such actions. Psychologists tried to find a pattern of such actions, but yet human minds are full of variables, and it is impossible to prove anything of emotion through logic. One way of the human mind trying to express themselves is through art works.
Many tried to link science with art. They failed. There is nothing logical that could be explained by logic in art. It is purely a way of the artists trying to convey a certain message to the audiences. As stated above, emotions cannot be explained or interpreted by logic, so any approach of seeing art by logic is destined to failure. Scientist tried very hard to investigate how audiences respond to certain types of artworks, and tried to classify different kinds of emotions. They even tried to come up with formulae which explains the immediate responses upon appealed to these artworks. However, any such kinds of researches are means of humans trying to quantify emotions, which indeed has no absolute values. If we try to quantify emotion, we are discarding information of which we are currently unable to categorize. This is also said to be consequences of the development of science since such developments depend on sorting raw data into groups.
The most appropriate example is Picasso. He is now regarded as one of the greatest artists ever lived on this planet. However, his way of seeing the world is not so similar as us. His early artworks are mostly visual arts and can be easily interpreted by audiences. However in his late days he started to paint in a different way. His distorted way of painting had made him less understood by the world, but yet at the same time more popular. Most artists can comprehend with his painting, and believe that it is a better way for him to communicate with the audiences. However, using logic to analyse his paintings, scientists came up with a result that it is an outcome of his psychological problems. Therefore if we trust logic so much at the very beginning, we would have lost many fascinating masterpieces.
Moreover, even logic can prove everything it does not necessarily prove everything “useful”. A problem of language here is that: how do we see things as useful? Some objects or events might be useful to certain individuals, but useless to others. For example, a Terminator action figure might be of great usefulness and significance to Jonathan, a Terminator addict. However to Jimmy Chau, a Pokemon addict, might be of total uselessness. Therefore the term usefulness on Terminator figures is totally different to Jonathan and Jimmy, and might be a third way appealing to the others. Logic might be able to prove a lot of phenomena, but not all of them being proved is meaningful to us. For example, science proved by logic that the universe is constantly expanding, and will collapse after certain billion years of time. It is true that somehow logic did prove this to be a fact, however is it really meaningful to us? We might think yes it is because now human beings know more and we realise how small we are. However to most of us where we “don’t care about the universe” (which most of us honestly do not) there is no meaning to us whether the universe will collapse in a billion years’ time. So even science proves something to be true, it does not necessarily be meaningful. From here, another conclusion can be drawn: logic can prove knowledge to be meaningful to those who are concerned.
