1

there are a lot of daily social activity of human civilization actually contradictory, or it has no direct logical reasoning to support such operation.

for example 1. talking to someone that you don't really want to know about 2. emotional context 3. stock market trend

i want to ask if "contradiction = wrong" is because we lack of knowledge to find the reason for the contradicted thing? or something is definitely contradictory in any state of affair?

if the answer is first (contradiction = lack of knowledge to find the reason of it), is that means we are asserting we have not enough knowledge when we asserting other arguments have contradiction (or both of people are lack of knowledge when the owner of the argument also cannot provide the logical proof)

if the answer is second (something is definitely contradictory in any state of affair), is such thing can be defined as the contradiction of truth ( thus we found the truth by reversing it)?

thanks.

Improve this question
9
  • What's contradictory about your examples?
    – E...
    Feb 6, 2017 at 6:15
  • such as the anger made us act irrationally. stock market flowing is not exactly bases on the circumstance of the actual revenue of the company, anticipating something that usually will not happen at all
    – SKLTFZ
    Feb 6, 2017 at 7:15
  • Two statements are contradictory when one is the denial of the other.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Feb 6, 2017 at 8:06
  • A statement is called a contradiction when it implies (or it is itself) a couple of contradictory statements.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Feb 6, 2017 at 8:07
  • Thus, a contradiction is a false statement (at least in "classical" two-valued logic), because two contradictory statements cannot both be true simultaneously.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Feb 6, 2017 at 8:09

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

You may be interested in studying the position of Dialetheism. You can read about it on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

It deals with the theory that there are true contradictions and discards the law of non-contradiction in a general sense. This isn't to say that there can't be any contradictions, as far as I understand it, but that A and -A does not entail absurdity for every possible A. You can find a better, more accurate description at the link I posted. I'm not sure if it will answer the question that you posted, but if you're interested in pursuing the implications of accepting certain contradictions, you may find this resource helpful.

Improve this answer
0

What you're talking about isn't actually a contradiction; it's called "laterality".

First, validity does not mean that something is true; only that it logically follows from causation to conclusion. If the causation (what starts the thing happening) is not true, then the logic can still follow to the conclusion for validity--but it will always be false. This is used often in storytelling to establish a logical basis for things that don't actually exist--how a person would react, for example, if elves came out from under the east end of the Brooklyn Bridge and claimed to have been there the whole time.

Laterality is the acceptance of logical following without asserting whether or not something is true.

Now, if we consider the causation indisputable, we can still have two (or more, but for simplicity let's stick to two) different ways of seeing the way that things played out.

Person A thinks that the stock market's influences are entirely based in reasoning and perception about how people are going to react.

Person B thinks that the stock market's influences are entirely based in reactivity and don't really take reason into account.

Neither of these people is necessarily right or wrong, and aren't necessarily true or false; they merely see two different perspectives which can both be considered valid. If they want to argue over which is better reasoning, great. If they want to argue over which is more true, that could actually cause problems, since it's not provably true or false--it's just two opinions which are laterally valid.

I hope that helps clarify!

Improve this answer
4
  • for your case you gave out two statements, which is person A and person B. and you assumed that two opinions which are laterally valid. however these 2 statements looks contradicted each others (by ~reasoning and reasoning relationship). in this case, how can these 2 statements be true together. is that just your example which is not completed to elaborate the entire scenario?
    – SKLTFZ
    Feb 7, 2017 at 7:23
  • in this case, even through afterwards you gave out a better statement ( which is two statements and looks no more contradiction included), is it really 100% guarantee they will not contain any logical fallacy anymore? or issues created after the change of the state of affairs? or there is something which is 100% free from logical fallacy? any example for it?
    – SKLTFZ
    Feb 7, 2017 at 7:25
  • in case something will be asserted from true to false after the changes of state of affairs (or placing both statement in the same statement but they are consider correct separately)? what is called "fact" when we consider something in the actual world (is it true or false?)? or in fact everything is just either true or false, our knowledge is some description of the empirical experience reflection of us without reasoning?
    – SKLTFZ
    Feb 7, 2017 at 7:31
  • Lateral validity can often be contradictory; but that doesn't necessarily make one right and the other wrong, which was the question.
    – Vishwa Jay
    Feb 8, 2017 at 8:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .