Is there any way to justify the laws of logic without using the laws of logic?

Can we prove anything, or is the best that we can hope to achieve an invitation to compare the plausibility of the premises of an argument with the plausibility of the negation of the conclusion of that argument?

I am reading a logic book which discussed the differences between Aristotelian Logic and Boole-Russell (modern) Logic. If the Boole-Russell logic leaves 5 valid moods out, which Aristotelian Logic covers, why do we continue to use Boole-Russell logic if it is "incomplete" per se?

Why are philosophers silent about Aristotelian principles of logic?

Are logical inferences hardwired into our brains?

If the saying "nothing is impossible" were correct, then wouldn't it be impossible for something to be impossible?

What arguments can be given against ad hominem arguments?

First of all I want to say I'm sorry for my bad English. For I am Icelandic, I don't get a lot of English classes. ok My friend is always talking about "everything is a goat"; it makes a little sense to me but it is ridiculous. The opposite to everything is nothing. The statement "nothing is a goat" is not right. Isn't there some gap between everything and nothing? Can't we say "something is a goat"? I hope you answer :)

Are there logic systems that are internally consistent that have a different makeup to the logic system that we use?

How do you tell the difference between a reductio and a surprising conclusion?