Thread 16840849

Are there true contradictions?

>>16840849 (OP)
Anyone who denies the law of the excluded middle is either a grifter or a retard.

>>16840855
UH OH
UH OH SPAGHETIO

>>16840849 (OP)
Yes and no.

>>16840849 (OP)
There are no "truths" in formal logic. There are only axioms, assumptions, and deductions. You can assume a contradiction, but as shown any statement follows from it so it's rather pointless.

>>16840906
>this is a valid deduction
>this statement follows from these axioms

>>16840940
Yeah, you can call that truth if you like.

>>16840855
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
checkmate, shit4brain

>>16840906
The premise of a contradiction rests on a contradiction which superficially invalidates it for disqualification. For a contradiction to be known, then it must be shown to exist. And if a contradiction exist, it precisely nullifies its exclusionary capability. Because there is a counterexample. So one could only say that a contradiction is merely highly unlikely and seek out further argumentation to find certainty.
Erasing this requires revisiting the basis of the so-called laws of logic.

>>16840906
The principle of explosion follows from disjunctive introduction. You can just restrict disjunctive clauses with a relevancy principle.

>>16840855
The law of excluded weakens a system, and its exclusion has nothing to do with paraconsistency, its just intuitionistic logic.