“Paraconsistent Logics!,” Bulletin of the Section of Logic of the Polish Academy of Sciences 26 (1997) 156–163.

 download pdf

I respond to an interesting argument of Hartley Slater to the effect that there is no such thing as paraconsistent logic. Slater argues that since paraconsistent logics involve interpreting a sentence and its negation as both true at points in a model structure, it is not really negation that is being modelled, since negation is meant to be a contradictory forming operator. I sketch how different paraconsistentists can respond to his argument, and I then defend my own response, that although contradictions are indeed never true (and cannot be true) it does not follow that a semantics ought not evaluate them as true in certain models.


Do you like this, or do you have a comment? Then please  share or reply on Twitter, or  email me.


← Display Logic and Gaggle Theory | Writing Archive | Combining Possibilities and Negations →

about

I’m Greg Restall, and this is my personal website. ¶ I am the Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews.

elsewhere

subscribe

To receive updates from this site, you can subscribe to the  RSS feed of all updates to the site in an RSS feed reader, or follow me on Twitter at  @consequently, where I’ll update you if anything is posted.

search