This is where I disagree...the correstness or logic does not make it any more "logic" then logic that is not correct.
This is why I said that Logic is not the truth in and of itself.
The premises that support the conclusion need to relate to actual evidence, context and facts to be considered sound.
To give an example:
All humans are mortal. (Premise)
Samuel L. Jackson is a human. (Premise)
Therefore, Samuel L. Jackson is mortal. (Conclusion)
There are of course assumptions in the premises, like Samuel L. Jackson being a human, humans being mortal, and so on, which are confirmed outside of the argument, through observation and experiment and measurement (of people dying and of Jackson having the characteristics to be a human), which support the validity of the premises.
Other: whats the logic
Me: If A='l" then do xyz
Other: thats not right
if I wanted to "probe" it would go like this...
Me: whats not right
Other: the logic
which inferes that whether it is right or wrong its still logic.
Yes.
If the premises are false, then the conclusion is in error. But:
I think I understand what you mean by arriving at the wrong conclusion from false premises that are logical.
To quickly borrow from Wiki, because I like this example:
"If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships."