Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that In paraconsistent logics like Priest's LP, contradictions can be true without trivializing the system, so K(p ∧ ¬Kp) being both assertible and deniable need not yield absurdity.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If K(p ∧ ¬Kp) is truly both assertible and deniable, speakers cannot coordinate on its truth-value, undermining the communicative function of language.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Paraconsistent logics preserve ¬(p ∧ ¬p) as valid in most systems (weak explosion); they don't genuinely tolerate true contradictions, only shift the problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Accepting genuine contradictions at the object level requires explaining why we should believe any negation, risking incoherent rational belief systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Classical logic's explosion principle (ex falso quodlibet) is a stipulated rule, not a logical law, so rejecting it preserves rational discourse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Self-knowledge paradoxes like K(p ∧ ¬Kp) arise from classical assumptions; paraconsistent logic dissolves them without abandoning the propositions involved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Semantic gluts (true and false simultaneously) occur in natural language and belief revision; paraconsistent systems model this phenomenon directly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.