[Guille]

Mohan, it's a great starter your post. I want to comment in parts.

Logic is not entirelly based on facts, nor on the supposed facs. Supposed facts is all the facts we can have because supposition is preciselly the limit of thought. Anyway, logic is more about derivation. Observation (science) and interpretation (philosophy) are in charge of extracting the principles and the methods by which we study, but the actual study is done by logic. I mean, by this, that preciselly what Russell, Hilbert and others tried a century ago, to axiomatize all mathematics by logic, was stupid, and that is why Godel didn't have problems to proof not only that everything tried was wrong, but also something that most people don't notice, and which is very very very rare in science; he proved that no possible ever form of mathematical axioms based on logic would ever be correct. You also say that 'pure logic' (I put it in inverted commas because I doubt that such thing is plausible) has no place for emotions, whiles actually, when any mathematician like Russell was working with logic, was impulsed to do that by a feeling, and was impulsed to do every step he took by a feeling, cause steps are done by decisions (not by wills) and decisions are done by feelings. Logic does not depend on the beliefs of society? I think it does: we belief that 'if a then b, and if b then c, then it must be that if a then c necessarily' is true, that's why we count it as a type of argument in logic (I can't remember the name now, they all have latin names). I do agree though that logic seems to be nowhere when trying to define it as a science or an art or a philosophy. I think it's actually none of them. But part of all. Ludwig Wittgenstein said that everything is in the dimension of logic, either positivelly logical or negativelly logical (illogical), so it is like a dimension in a graph, but nothing can go out of the dimension, the world is thus trapped in it. I like thinking of science as a tree, where the root is life ( or existence, it doesn't matter the term. It is the soil which gives nutrients to the tree), the trunk is logic (cause it's basis to all of it), philosophy is the surface, the cortex (because wherever you look at a tree, there is always cortex, it is impplied in both the trunk and the branches), and the different specialities form the branches. Also, I should note that science has abandoned the classical idea of being logical as being exact science, and with QM in physics, Collision theory in chemistry, evolution in biology... The classically 'exact' science are still mathematical sciences, yes, but now they are not exact, the math is either probabilistic, or random, or even chaotic. I agree with you when you say that logic depends on the individual's ability of reasoning. I have philosophized about logic in other threads, probably some in the forum 'Philosophy of Math'.