1

Is there a non-dialetheist paraconsistent logic in which invalidating the law of non contradiction (someone is both stupid and not stupid and short ∃x(STUPID(x) ∧ ¬STUPID(x) ∧ SHORT(x))) in any proposition means that every predicate in it only holds in false propositions (it is false that Simon is someone who is short ⊥∃x(SIMON(x) ∧ SHORT(x)).

I've tried reading the linked to articles but don't understand them. Just trying to work out if it's OK to believe some intuitive reasoning.

  • Priest may be your man, as Geoffrey suggests. Melhuish would also be relevant. It makes no sense to me as a system of logic and I can see need for it but it's an interesting idea. Just beware of making Priest's mistake by confusing it with the logic of Buddhist philosophy. . –  Aug 21 '18 at 11:45
  • 1
    Perhaps you should start with [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic) then. Paraconsistent logic by itself is neither dialetheist nor non-dialetheist, one can use it to reason about true contradictions but one can also use it for other purposes to reason about systems without them, see e.g. [relevance logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic). – Conifold Aug 22 '18 at 21:52
  • a good para-consistent logic will block conclusions unrelated to the premises, so no, this is not a good request –  Aug 25 '18 at 04:56
  • @Conifold better? –  Aug 25 '18 at 04:56
  • ps i added non dialetheist in case some paraconsistent logcs imply dialetheism, which isn't beyond the realm of all conception is it? –  Aug 25 '18 at 05:02

0 Answers0