Why is the socratic paradox called a paradox?

Is there a way to prove that logic works? It seems that the only two methods for doing this would be to use a logical proof –which would be incorporating an assumed answer into the question– or to use some system other than logic –thus proving that sometimes logic does not work.

Is there a logical explanation for why one ought to be altruistic? Someone tried to logically prove to me why one ought to be altruistic. I found a list of logical fallacies here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies and I'd like to know which one's apply to what he wrote. This is what he wrote... "You should be altruistic because in the long run it will be beneficial not only to society, but also to yourself. Being altruistic fosters and encourages a society in which people help those in need of help, which ultimately means you will be helped when you need it. Conversely, altruism also encourages a society where negative acts against others are discouraged, meaning for yourself that you are less likely to be attacked, stolen from, killed, raped, etc. On the evolutionary level it means that a society that protects and helps each other, and does not ransack his fellow man whenever he deems it beneficial to himself in the short run, has a greater chance of survival, both for the group as a...

Another application of the ad hominem fallacy questions... Let's say there is an expert who holds a doctorate and masters in their field of specialty. They have worked in their field for 30+ years. They have received grants from government sources, but also the private sector (which as I understand, is not uncommon). They are peer reviewed and published. Now let's say that they present a study, with all its evidences and reasoning. But one of the associations this expert is affiliated with has a particular worldview. It is claimed, that because of that affiliation, there exists a conflict of interest and a strongly expressed bias (perhaps a mission statement or motto). As a result, this expert cannot be trusted, has a significant loss of credibility, and the reasoning and evidences provided in any study therefore, should be thrown out, it does not need to be addressed or evaluated. To me, it seems rather odd. The argument presented ought to be evaluated as if it is made anonymously. The argument,...

Frequently, I see the statment: "logical truths are trivial". But, what is meant by the word *trivial*?

Would an omnipotent and omniscient being be bound by the laws of logic? If so, to what degree?

Working off Kelsen, logic and rules of inference, as well as other rule based systems, are normative, "ought" based systems. If this is true, or even if it isn't, what reason do we have to take that logical rules are reasonable? In other words, why should one accept that rules of valid inference (of any system) as actually generating true responses from true premises?

If Laws of logic are true or hold in all contexts, how can there be more one law? Do the two versions of De Mogan's laws differ? If so. how? Does the law of excluded middle differ from the law of non contradiction and from either version of De Morgans laws? Enoch

In predicate logic can we have valid arguments if we make an existential claim in our premises and not in the conclusion? In other words can we simply rename the existential quantifer to a "particular" quantifer or something of the sort? Does this particular quantifer always have to carry existential import?

Me and my professor are disagreeing about the nature of logic. He claims that logic is prescribes norms for correct reasoning, and is thus normative. I claim that logic is governed by a few axioms (just like any in any other discipline, i.e. science) that one is asked to accept, and then follows deductively, free of any normative claims. My question is: which side is more sound? Thank you.