In classical logic, every sentence is entailed by a contradiction: A and ¬A together entail B, for any sentences A and B whatsoever. This principle is often known as ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet (from a contradiction, everything follows), or the explosion principle. In paraconsistent logic, by contrast, this principle does not hold: arbitrary contradictions do not paraconsistently entail every sentence. Accordingly, paraconsistent logics are said to be contradiction tolerant. Semantics for paraconsistent logics can be given in a number of ways, but a common theme is that a sentence is allowed to be both true and false simultaneously. This can be achieved by introducing a third truth-value, thought of as both true and false; alternatively, it can be achieved (in the propositional case) be replacing the usual valuation function with a relation between sentences and the usual truth-values, true and false, so that a sentence may be related to either or both of these. Those who think there really are true contradictions are dialethists. Not all paraconsistent logicians are dialethists: some present paraconsistent logic as a better notion of what follows from what, or as a way to reason about inconsistent data.
|Key works||Asenjo 1966 and da Costa 1974 develop the Logic of Paradox (based on theor earlier work on paraconsistency in the 1950s). Priest et al 1989 is a classic early collection of papers. Priest 1987 is the classic philosophical defense of paraconsistent logic (and of dialethism).|
|Introductions||da Costa & Bueno 2010 and Priest 2008 are good encyclopaedia entries on paraconsistent logic. The introduction to Priest 2005 is a clear statement of the case for paraconsistent logics; chapter 7 of Priest 2001 gives basic logical details of a few paraconsistent logics.|
Using PhilPapers from home?
Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aness Kim Webster
Learn more about PhilPapers