Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

PL EN


2018 | 27 | 2 | 205-233

Article title

In Defence of Dialetheism: A Reply to Beziau and Tkaczyk

Authors

Content

Title variants

Languages of publication

EN

Abstracts

EN
In recent editions of this journal, Jean-Yves Beziau [8] and Marcin Tkaczyk [41] have criticised a prominent dialetheic logic and common arguments for dialetheism, respectively. While Beziau argues that Priest’s logic LP commits the dialetheist to trivialism, the thesis that all propositions are true, Tkaczyk maintains that the arguments traditionally proposed for dialetheism are faulty and ultimately that dialetheism should be rejected as self-refuting. This paper shows that both are mistaken in their contentions. Beziau’s argument conflates truth-in-an-interpretation with truth simpliciter and Tkaczyk misconstrues the substance of dialetheic arguments. In the process of identifying these weaknesses of both arguments, the paper clarifies elements of both dialetheic logics and dialetheism which these discussions demonstrate are still misunderstood within the literature.

Year

Volume

27

Issue

2

Pages

205-233

Physical description

Dates

published
2018-06-15

Contributors

author
  • Philosophy Department University College London

References

  • Anderson, A.R., and N.D. Belnap, Jr., Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. 1, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975.
  • Armour-Garb, B., “Diagnosing dialetheism”, pages 113–125 in Priest, G., Jc. Beall, and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.
  • Asenjo, F.G., “A calculus of antinomies”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 7 (1966): 103–5. DOI: 10.1305/ndjfl/1093958482
  • Batens, D., “Paraconsistency and its relation to worldviews” Foundations of Science 3 (1999): 259–283. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009678125533
  • Beall, Jc., Spandrels of Truth, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009.
  • Beall, Jc., “Why Priest’s reassurance is not reassuring”, Analysis 72 (2012): 517–525. DOI: 10.1093/analys/ans069
  • Beall, Jc., and G. Restall, Logical Pluralism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
  • Beziau, J.-Y., “Trivial dialetheism and the Logic of Paradox”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 25 (2016): 51–56. DOI: 10.12775/LLP.2015.022
  • Brown, B., “Yes, Virginia, there really are paraconsistent logics”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (1999): 489–500. DOI: 10.1023/A:1004390309035
  • Brown, B., “Simple natural deduction for weakly aggregative paraconsistent logics”, pages 137–148 in D. Batens et al. (eds.), Frontiers of Paraconsistent Logic, Exeter: Research Studies Press, 2000.
  • da Costa, N.C.A., “On the theory of inconsistent formal systems”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15 (1974): 497–510. DOI: 10.1305/ndjfl/1093891487
  • Dunn, J.M., “Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and ‘coupled trees’”, Philosophical Studies 29 (1976): 149–68. DOI: 10.1007/BF00373152
  • Field, H., Saving Truth from Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  • Harman, G., Change in View: Principles of Reasoning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
  • Howson, C., “More about the liar”, Erkenntnis 17 (1982): 263–265. DOI: 10.1007/BF00170153
  • Hugly, P., and C. Sayward, “Is English inconsistent?”, Erkenntnis 15 (1980): 343–347. DOI: 10.1007/BF02070843
  • Jaśkowski, S., “Propositional calculus for contradictory deductive systems”, Studia Logica 24 (1969): 143–57. DOI: 10.1007/BF02134311. The second English version: “A propositional calculus for inconsistent deductive system”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 7 (1999): 35–56. DOI: 10.12775/LLP.1999.003. Originally published as: “Rachunek zdań dla systemów dedukcyjnych sprzecznych”, Studia Societatis Scientiarum Torunensis, Sect. A, vol. I, no. 5 (1948): 57–77.
  • Jaśkowski, S., “On the discussive conjunction in the propositional calculus for inconsistent deductive systems”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 7 (1999): 57–59. DOI: 10.12775/LLP.1999.004. Originally published as: “O koniunkcji dyskusyjnej w rachunku zdań dla systemów dedukcyjnych sprzecznych”, Studia Societatis Scientiarum Torunensis, Sect. A, vol. I, no. 8 (1949): 171–172.
  • Jennings, R. E., and P.K. Scotch, “The preservation of coherence” Studia Logica 43 (1984): 89–106. DOI: 10.1007/BF00935743
  • Kabay, P.D., “A defense of trivialism” (PhD thesis), University of Melbourne, Australia, 2008.
  • Kleene, S.C., Introduction to Metamathematics, Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland, 1971.
  • Lewis, D.K., “Logic for equivocators”, Noûs 16 (1982): 431–441. DOI: 10.2307/2216219
  • Littmann, G., and K. Simmons, “A critique of dialetheism”, pages 314–335 in Priest, G., Jc. Beall, and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.
  • Marcos, J., “Logics of formal inconsistency” (PhD thesis), Universidade Técnica De Lisboa, Portugal (2005).
  • Mares, E.D., “Semantic dialetheism”, pages 264–275 in Priest, G., Jc. Beall, and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.
  • Martin, B., “Dialetheism and the impossibility of the world”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (2015): 61–75. DOI: 10.1080/00048402.2014.956768
  • Meheus, J. (ed.), Inconsistency in Science, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002.
  • Parsons, T., “True contradictions”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20 (1990): 335–354. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1990.10716495
  • Priest, G., “Logic of Paradox”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979): 219–241. DOI: 10.1007/BF00258428
  • Priest, G., Beyond the Limits of Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • Priest, G., “Everett’s trilogy”, Mind 105 (1996): 631–47. DOI: 10.1093/mind/105.420.631
  • Priest, G., “What is so bad about contradictions?”, pages 23–38 in Priest, G., Jc. Beall, and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.
  • Priest, G., Doubt Truth to be a Liar, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.
  • Priest, G., In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent (2 nd ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.
  • Priest, G., and F. Berto “Dialetheism”, in E.N. Zalto (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013, Summer. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/dialetheism/
  • Priest, G., and R. Routley, “Systems of paraconsistent logic”, pages 151–186 in G. Priest, R. Routley, and J. Norman (eds.), Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent, München, Germany: Philosophia Verlag, 1989.
  • Ray, G., “Tarski and the metalinguistic liar”, Philosophical Studies 115 (2003): 55–80. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024908230635
  • Shapiro, S., “Simple truth, contradiction, and consistency”, pages 336–354 in Priest, G., Jc. Beall, and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.
  • Tarski, A., “The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4 (1944): 341–375. DOI: 10.2307/2102968
  • Tarski, A., “On the concept of truth in formalized languages” (translated by J. H. Woodger), pages 152–278 Logic, Semantics, and Metamathematics, J. Corcorn (ed.), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1983. Originally published in 1933.
  • Tennant, N., “An anti-realist critique of dialetheism”, pages 355–384 in Priest, G., Jc. Beall, and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.
  • Tkaczyk, M., “The case of dialetheism”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 25 (2016): 203–24. DOI: 10.12775/LLP.2016.012
  • Zalta, E.N., “In defense of the law of non-contradiction”, pages 418–436 in Priest, G., Jc. Beall, and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.

Document Type

Publication order reference

Identifiers

YADDA identifier

bwmeta1.element.desklight-edb8104e-9ff8-4277-b5d7-c06eacb570b9
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.