Who agrees that contradictions set the imperative to adjust the premises in order to be logical? Why? How?
My answer: I agree that contradictions set the imperative to adjust the premises in order to be logical. A contradiction is the same as a paradox. A paradox is when theory does match reality. Thus a paradox sets the imperative for adjusting theories until they match reality. When reality is counterintuitive, contradictions appear which set the imperative for adjusting premises until all contradiction disappears, to be logical.
I would say that also contradictions set the imperative to adjust the definitions of the concepts involved. For instance before Russell's paradox 'sets' where defined to be the same as classes. But then 'set' was given a more restricted definition so that not all class is a set. Then Russell's paradox was resolved.
As one of my supervisors often used to say, «One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens.»
https://gwern.net/modus
So one may reject the conclusion of a modus ponens argument because it implicitly contradicts something else one believes. So an imperative to adjust the premises may be due to simple disagreement rather than out-and-out paradox.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics