Topics Logic

Question What are the defenses to the attacks on the law of non-contradiction. In other words, what is the traditional philosophical orthodoxy's response to developments in paraconsistent logics (Graham Priest's "Doubt Truth to be a Liar" or "In Contradiction", etc.)?

Accepted:
September 28, 2009

Comments

This does sound a bit like a question asking for help with a student paper, which isn't really the role of this site: and certainly this sort of techie question doesn't lend itself to a snappy answer here.

So just two comments. First, paraconsistent logics don't have to attack the law of non-contradiction -- i.e. paraconsistent logics don't have to say there are true contradictions (dialetheias): see here for more explanation. Second, for some defences of the law of non-contradiction, see the papers collected in Part V of Priest, Beall and Armour-Garb (eds) The Law of Non-Contradiction.

Question What are the defenses to the attacks on the law of non-contradiction. In other words, what is the traditional philosophical orthodoxy's response to developments in paraconsistent logics (Graham Priest's "Doubt Truth to be a Liar" or "In Contradiction", etc.)? Accepted:September 28, 2009

Question What are the defenses to the attacks on the law of non-contradiction. In other words, what is the traditional philosophical orthodoxy's response to developments in paraconsistent logics (Graham Priest's "Doubt Truth to be a Liar" or "In Contradiction", etc.)?

Accepted:
September 28, 2009