Talk:Principle of explosion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Anyone want to explain this in english?? Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 19:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Example: Given the premise that "A is hot and A is cold," assume that pigs cannot fly. Due to your premise, you can thence conclude that A is hot, but you can also thence conclude that A is cold, which is a contradiction. Hence, pigs can fly; QED. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"Lindsay Lohan is hot and Lindsay Lohan is not hot, therefore Adolf Hitler used the Death Star to assasinate Julius Caesar." That is a valid application of the principle of explosion. Which personally, I think demonstrates how silly this principle is. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 09:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like non sequitur on acid. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 09:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, not a non sequitur, which is why it is very important to keep one's system of axioms or premises consistent. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 14:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think this demonstrates why ECQ should be rejected, because intuitively all applications of it seem like non sequiturs, even if from the viewpoint of accepting ECQ they aren't. And rejection of ECQ may lead us towards an acceptance of paraconsistent logic. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 08:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] "Tacit applications" section

Don't understand what this section is trying to say. Is it saying, Bible says X, Bible says not(X), hence for all Y Bible implies Y? That's a rather silly argument, because it treats this principle as something universally accepted, yet it is rather shaky - it is quite commonly doubted, e.g. by proponents of relevant (rather than material or strict) implication. It would seem strange to argue against the Bible on the basis of an obscure principle that many philosophers and logicians view as questionable. Aren't there much better arguments available? Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 11:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Bible section

Etherreality seems to be shifting the meaning of the text from pointing out that the bible has inherent contradictions, errors, etc to blaming it on the reader for just not seeing what its REALLY saying. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support