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
    The existence of formally valid paraconsistent logics sho... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The law of contradiction is a philosophical axiom (an indispensable precondition of universal validity)

    The existence of formally valid paraconsistent logics shows that inferential systems can function without explosion, defeating the claim that contradiction-avoidance is foundational.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    Explosion (in logic)(the problem that paraconsistent logic claims to solve)
    A situation where one contradiction causes your whole system to fall apart—you can prove anything is true, even false things.
    Formally valid(describing the technical legitimacy of incompatible theories)
    Logically correct according to the rules of reasoning, even if the conclusion might seem odd or unacceptable in practice.
    Foundational (in philosophy)(describing what contradiction-avoidance was thought to be)
    Something so basic and essential that everything else rests on it or depends on it.
    Inferential systems(what the statement says can function without explosion)
    Sets of rules that let you draw conclusions from information you already have—basically, how we figure things out logically.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    contradiction(Relevant to distinguishing contradictions from false contingent statements in the logic student variant of the preface paradox.)
    A statement that is necessarily false in all interpretations; in this context, specifically the negation of a tautology or any falsehood drawn from a list containing only tautologies and contradictions.
    paraconsistent logic(Used to challenge the modal inference from □¬p to ¬◇p in Fitch's knowability argument)
    A logical system in which contradictions do not entail arbitrary conclusions, and in which a necessarily false statement may be both false and true at some world — making it both necessarily false and possible

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    The law of contradiction is a philosophical axiom (an indispensable precondition...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective