Think 12 (34):87-91 (2013)

Authors
Mark T. Nelson
Westmont College
Abstract
ExtractThe logical Law of Non-contradiction – that a proposition cannot be both true and false – enjoys a special, perhaps uniquely privileged, status in philosophy. Most philosophers think that finding a contradiction – the assertion of both P and not-P – in one's reasoning is the best possible evidence that something has gone wrong, the ultimate refutation of a position. But why should this be so? What reason do we have to believe it?Send article to KindleTo send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply. Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.NON-CONTRADICTION: OH YEAH AND SO WHAT?Volume 12, Issue 34Mark T. NelsonDOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175613000110Your Kindle email address Please provide your Kindle email.@free.kindle.com@kindle.com Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send ×Send article to Dropbox To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox. NON-CONTRADICTION: OH YEAH AND SO WHAT?Volume 12, Issue 34Mark T. NelsonDOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175613000110Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send ×Send article to Google Drive To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive. NON-CONTRADICTION: OH YEAH AND SO WHAT?Volume 12, Issue 34Mark T. NelsonDOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175613000110Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send ×Export citation.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S1477175613000110
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 57,077
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Dialectical Contradiction is Not "a and Not-A". Du Ruji - 1982 - Chinese Studies in Philosophy 13 (4):3.
A Dialectical Contradiction is Not "A and Not-A". Rujdui - 1982 - Contemporary Chinese Thought 13 (4):3-8.
The Principal Contradiction and the Principal Aspect of a Contradiction.[author unknown] - 1977 - Contemporary Chinese Thought 9 (1):61-88.
The Universality and Particularity of Contradiction.[author unknown] - 1977 - Contemporary Chinese Thought 9 (1):36-60.
The Law of Non-Contradiction as a Metaphysical Principle.Tuomas Tahko - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Logic 7:32-47.
Conjunction and Contradiction.Achille C. Varzi - 2004 - In Graham Priest, J. C. Beall & Bradley Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays. Clarendon Press. pp. 93–110.
Wittgenstein's Attitude Toward Contradiction.Seung-Chong Lee - 1992 - Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo
Meaning, Metaphysics, and Contradiction.Francesco Berto - 2006 - American Philosophical Quarterly 43 (4):283-297.
Contradiction and Authority in Gorgias.Bradley Morgan Levett - 2002 - Dissertation, University of Washington
Logical Non-Apriorism and the Law of Non-Contradiction.Otavio Bueno & Mark Colyvan - 2004 - In Graham Priest, Jc Beall & Bradley P. Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction : New Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press. pp. 156--175.
Łukasiewicz on the Principle of Contradiction.Venanzio Raspa - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Research 24:57-112.
The Unified and Conflicting Nature of the Aspects of a Contradiction.[author unknown] - 1977 - Contemporary Chinese Thought 9 (1):89-109.
C. I. Lewis and Dayton on Pragmatic Contradiction.Jeffrey E. Foss - 1981 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 17 (2):153 - 157.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-02

Total views
52 ( #192,105 of 2,411,291 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #538,938 of 2,411,291 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes