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. .
    – user20253
    Aug 21, 2018 at 11:45
  • 1
    Perhaps you should start with Wikipedia 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.
    – Conifold
    Aug 22, 2018 at 21:52
  • a good para-consistent logic will block conclusions unrelated to the premises, so no, this is not a good request
    – user34654
    Aug 25, 2018 at 4:56
  • @Conifold better?
    – user34654
    Aug 25, 2018 at 4:56
  • ps i added non dialetheist in case some paraconsistent logcs imply dialetheism, which isn't beyond the realm of all conception is it?
    – user34654
    Aug 25, 2018 at 5:02


You must log in to answer this question.