Logic and Neutrality
The author of the article Logic and Neutrality states in his article that the concept that logic is a neutral umpire is totally wrong. He states that logic itself can be a debating point for philosophers, and that logic have and continues to help us solve philosophical questions. I agree with the author of the article in that logic can help us solve questions, but I think logic is not something that can be argued. I find logic to be a fact; you cannot argue a fact, for facts are something that cannot be changed unless our perception of the fact was wrong in the first place. Unless our view of logic is wrong, I do not think logic can be arguable.
The power of logic is a chain of logical reasoning made by connecting a few simple axioms of logic. by simple using logic, it can solve seemingly unanswerable questions, and it proves that logic is not a neutral umpire.
Logic is not a neutral umpire because it can and does solve questions. It is not a middle man that tells us it is neither A nor B. By using logic, we can find answers by removing the answers that are illogical. Therefore, logic cannot be neutral because it will give us answers.
The author challenges the reader at the end of the article, asking, us to see the close similarities between logic and science, and to try to find a distinctive identity of logic.
According to the author, logic is not just a controversy-free zone, and that if restricted to uncontroversial principles, nothing would be left. No principal, even logic, is above challenge. Logic can give us infinite answers or no answers, and the strength of logic is what makes it similar to science.
The author of the article views science like philosophy. He believes everything can be debated on it’s meaning, and that nothing is controversy-free. He seems to note that science is so strong that it is obvious when there’s a flaw, since a flaw can be seen with a simple counter example.