Paraconsistency Everywhere

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 43 (3):147-156 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

“Paraconsistent” means “beyond the consistent” [3, 15]. Paraconsistent logics tolerate inconsistencies in a way that traditional logics do not. In a paraconsistent logic, the inference of explosion A, ∼AB is rejected. This may be for any of a number of reasons [16]. For proponents of relevance [1, 2] the argument has gone awry when we infer an irrelevant B from the inconsistent premises. Those who argue that inconsistent theories may have some logical content but do not commit us to everything, have reason to think that these theories are closed under a relation of paraconsistent logical consequence [12, 18]. Another reason to adopt a paraconsistent logic is more extreme. You may take the world to be inconsistent [14], and a true theory incorporating this inconsistency must be governed by a paraconsistent logic.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,252

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
105 (#161,801)

6 months
19 (#125,141)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Greg Restall
University of Melbourne

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The logic of paradox.Graham Priest - 1979 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):219 - 241.
Semantic analysis of orthologic.R. I. Goldblatt - 1974 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 3 (1/2):19 - 35.
A New Approach to Quantum Logic.J. L. Bell - 1986 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1):83-99.
Paraconsistent logics?B. H. Slater - 1995 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 24 (4):451 - 454.
Logic on the australian plan.Robert K. Meyer & Errol P. Martin - 1986 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 15 (3):305 - 332.

View all 7 references / Add more references