DOCSLIB.ORG

Logical Fatalism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Logical Fatalism Logical Fatalism Before examining the problem of human freedom versus divine foreknowledge, it will be helpful to look at its predecessor: Logical Fatalism. Aristotle (in 350 BC) argued that, if we accept certain plausible assumptions about the nature of truth itself, then the future is already fixed. Let’s see how. 1. Truth Values of Propositions: A proposition is a meaningful statement. It ASSERTS something. For instance, the following are all propositions: <Richmond is in Virginia> <Unicorns exist> <There is a table in this room> <The Moon is made of cheese> Furthermore, all propositions have a truth-value: Namely, they are either TRUE, or they are FALSE. The first 2 propositions above are true, while the latter 2, sadly, are false. But, notice that the DENIAL of the two propositions on the right are TRUE: <It is not the case that I just saw a unicorn> TRUE <It is not the case that the moon is made of cheese> TRUE Thus, the following axiom of logic: The Law of Excluded Middle (LEM): Every proposition is either true, or its negation is. That is, necessarily, “Either P or not-P” is true. So, consider two people, who make the following claims: Fred says, <There is a table in this room> Wilma says, <There is NOT a table in this room> Without even looking at the room, we already know that ONE of these two people is right (i.e., is saying something true), and the other is wrong (saying something false). This is just the way truth works. 2. The Fixity of the Future: Now consider two people, who make the following claims about a future event. (Aristotle’s famous example is of a sea battle tomorrow.) Fred says, <Chad will buy coffee at The Daily Grind on Friday> Wilma says, <Chad will NOT buy coffee at The Daily Grind on Friday> 1 Who is right? They cannot BOTH be right. But, due to the Law of Excluded Middle, one of them MUST be right. That is, either Fred is saying something true, or else Wilma is. Aristotle writes, “if one man affirms that an event of a given character will take place and another denies it, it is plain that the statement of the one will correspond with reality and that of the other will not.” Put another way, “if one person says that something will be and another denies this same thing, it is clearly necessary for one of them to be saying what is true – if every affirmation is either true or false; for both will not be the case together under such circumstances.” Note that Aristotle is not saying that one of the two WILL be right. He is saying that one of them is PRESENTLY right. But, if that is the case, then the claim uttered by the person who is right must necessarily take place in the future! For instance, imagine that Fred is the one who is speaking the truth. In that case, Chad WILL buy coffee on Friday. What’s worse, there is no way that he can FAIL to buy coffee Friday. In short, due to the nature of truth, “nothing is or takes place fortuitously, either in the present or in the future, and there are no real alternatives; everything takes place of necessity and is fixed.” Then, “Everything that will be, therefore, happens necessarily.” Why Necessity? Imagine that you met Fred and Wilma back in 2010. They said to you: Fred says, <You will take Medieval Philosophy> Wilma says, <You will NOT take Medieval Philosophy> As they said it, one was speaking the truth, and one was speaking a falsehood. Sure, at the time, you didn’t KNOW which one of them was speaking the truth—but that doesn’t matter. Whether you knew it at the time or not, Fred was speaking the truth. Now, if Fred was speaking the truth, then it was ALREADY true in 2010 that you would take Medieval Philosophy. And this wasn’t just true in 2010. It was already true in 400 AD. It was even true a billion years ago! “But if it was always true to say that [an event] would be so, it could not be not so. … But if something cannot not happen, it is impossible for it not to happen; and if it is impossible for something not to happen, it is necessary for it to happen. … For a man may predict an event ten thousand years beforehand, and another may predict the reverse; that which was truly predicted at the moment in the past will of necessity take place.” 2 In other words, long before you were born there was already a FACT OF THE MATTER about whether you would take Medieval Philosophy. Namely, it’s been true all along that you WOULD take this class. But, then, it has always been impossible for you to NOT take this class. So, your decision to take this class has always been fixed, since forever. 3. The Argument: In argument form, the problem might look like this: 1. Necessarily, <Either you will buy coffee Friday, or you will not> is presently true (because the law of excluded middle is true). 2. Therefore, one of the following two propositions is presently true: (a) <You will buy coffee Friday> (b) <It is not the case that you will buy coffee Friday> (because a disjunction is true if and only if one of its disjuncts is true). 3. If (a) is true, then (a) is unavoidable (i.e., there is no way to make it false), and If (b) is true, then (b) is unavoidable. 4. Thus, either buying coffee Friday is unavoidable, or not buying coffee Friday is unavoidable. 5. This is generalizable to any proposition about the future; i.e., general fatalism about the future is true, such that your entire future is fixed and unavoidable. The result is that your entire future is already fixed and unavoidable. So, there is no free will. There is not even any random chance. There is one set future which is certain to happen, and no one has the ability to do otherwise. 4. Aristotle’s Solution: First, note that “either-or” statements are called disjunctions, and each half is called a “disjunct”. Perhaps you would agree that the following disjunction is presently true: <Either Chad will buy coffee Friday or Chad will NOT buy coffee Friday> TRUE Thus, you accept the Law of Excluded Middle. Nevertheless, you might be inclined to DENY that either of that statement’s DISJUNCTS is presently true: <Chad will buy coffee on Friday> Presently, neither true nor false <Chad will NOT buy coffee on Friday> Presently, neither true nor false Which one of these two will turn out to be the case is presently “up in the air”, so to speak. Therefore, at present, each of these two statements is neither true nor false. Sure, one of them will BECOME true on Friday (and the other will become false). But, until then, both statements lack a “truth value”. Aristotle writes, 3 It is necessary for there to be or not be a sea battle tomorrow; but is not necessary for a sea battle to take place tomorrow, nor for one not to take place – though it is necessary for one to take place or not to take place. … [I]t is necessary for one or the other of the contradictories to be true or false – not, however, this one or that one, but as chance has it; or for one to be true rather than the other, yet not already true or false. While it is necessarily the case that EITHER a sea battle will take place tomorrow, or it won’t, there is NOT presently a fact of the matter about which of these two possibilities will occur. In this way, Aristotle rejects fatalism and preserves the openness of the future. Problem: First, are all statements about the future really neither true nor false? [To see why this is odd, it may help to imagine that you and a friend are at a restaurant. You say, “The following is true: I am going to order a burger.” Later, you order a burger and say, “See? I was right?” But, your friend endorses Solution 1, and says, “Actually, you were wrong. For, at the time, your statement was neither true nor false—but, you mistakenly asserted that it was true.” How absurd!] Second, in order for a disjunction (e.g., “Either A or B”) to be true, one of its disjuncts must be true. That is, “Either A or B” is true iff either “A” is true, or “B” is true. [Imagine I say that “Either Anne or Brett was at the party.” Then you ask, “Was Anne there?” No, I reply. “Was Brett there?” No, I reply again. That’s impossible! The either-or statement can only be true if Anne WAS at the party, or if Brett WAS at the party (or both). It simply cannot be true if neither disjunct is true. The disjunction is only true when one (or both) of its DISJUNCTS is true.] Therefore, the only way that <Either Chad will buy coffee Friday or Chad will NOT buy coffee Friday> can be PRESENTLY true is if one of its disjuncts is PRESENTLY true. That is, one of the following two propositions must be PRESENTLY true: <Chad will buy coffee on Friday> <Chad will NOT buy coffee on Friday> Aristotle “solves” the problem of fatalism by denying this. He says, rather, that one of these statements will BECOME true on Friday.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Classifying Material Implications Over Minimal Logic
    Classifying Material Implications over Minimal Logic Hannes Diener and Maarten McKubre-Jordens March 28, 2018 Abstract The so-called paradoxes of material implication have motivated the development of many non- classical logics over the years [2–5, 11]. In this note, we investigate some of these paradoxes and classify them, over minimal logic. We provide proofs of equivalence and semantic models separating the paradoxes where appropriate. A number of equivalent groups arise, all of which collapse with unrestricted use of double negation elimination. Interestingly, the principle ex falso quodlibet, and several weaker principles, turn out to be distinguishable, giving perhaps supporting motivation for adopting minimal logic as the ambient logic for reasoning in the possible presence of inconsistency. Keywords: reverse mathematics; minimal logic; ex falso quodlibet; implication; paraconsistent logic; Peirce’s principle. 1 Introduction The project of constructive reverse mathematics [6] has given rise to a wide literature where various the- orems of mathematics and principles of logic have been classified over intuitionistic logic. What is less well-known is that the subtle difference that arises when the principle of explosion, ex falso quodlibet, is dropped from intuitionistic logic (thus giving (Johansson’s) minimal logic) enables the distinction of many more principles. The focus of the present paper are a range of principles known collectively (but not exhaustively) as the paradoxes of material implication; paradoxes because they illustrate that the usual interpretation of formal statements of the form “. → . .” as informal statements of the form “if. then. ” produces counter-intuitive results. Some of these principles were hinted at in [9]. Here we present a carefully worked-out chart, classifying a number of such principles over minimal logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Sources of Explosion
    Two sources of explosion Eric Kao Computer Science Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 United States of America Abstract. In pursuit of enhancing the deductive power of Direct Logic while avoiding explosiveness, Hewitt has proposed including the law of excluded middle and proof by self-refutation. In this paper, I show that the inclusion of either one of these inference patterns causes paracon- sistent logics such as Hewitt's Direct Logic and Besnard and Hunter's quasi-classical logic to become explosive. 1 Introduction A central goal of a paraconsistent logic is to avoid explosiveness { the inference of any arbitrary sentence β from an inconsistent premise set fp; :pg (ex falso quodlibet). Hewitt [2] Direct Logic and Besnard and Hunter's quasi-classical logic (QC) [1, 5, 4] both seek to preserve the deductive power of classical logic \as much as pos- sible" while still avoiding explosiveness. Their work fits into the ongoing research program of identifying some \reasonable" and \maximal" subsets of classically valid rules and axioms that do not lead to explosiveness. To this end, it is natural to consider which classically sound deductive rules and axioms one can introduce into a paraconsistent logic without causing explo- siveness. Hewitt [3] proposed including the law of excluded middle and the proof by self-refutation rule (a very special case of proof by contradiction) but did not show whether the resulting logic would be explosive. In this paper, I show that for quasi-classical logic and its variant, the addition of either the law of excluded middle or the proof by self-refutation rule in fact leads to explosiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Denial of Bivalence Is Absurd'1
    On ‘The Denial of Bivalence is Absurd’1 Francis Jeffry Pelletier Robert J. Stainton University of Alberta Carleton University Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Timothy Williamson, in various places, has put forward an argument that is supposed to show that denying bivalence is absurd. This paper is an examination of the logical force of this argument, which is found wanting. I. Introduction Let us being with a word about what our topic is not. There is a familiar kind of argument for an epistemic view of vagueness in which one claims that denying bivalence introduces logical puzzles and complications that are not easily overcome. One then points out that, by ‘going epistemic’, one can preserve bivalence – and thus evade the complications. James Cargile presented an early version of this kind of argument [Cargile 1969], and Tim Williamson seemingly makes a similar point in his paper ‘Vagueness and Ignorance’ [Williamson 1992] when he says that ‘classical logic and semantics are vastly superior to…alternatives in simplicity, power, past success, and integration with theories in other domains’, and contends that this provides some grounds for not treating vagueness in this way.2 Obviously an argument of this kind invites a rejoinder about the puzzles and complications that the epistemic view introduces. Here are two quick examples. First, postulating, as the epistemicist does, linguistic facts no speaker of the language could possibly know, and which have no causal link to actual or possible speech behavior, is accompanied by a litany of disadvantages – as the reader can imagine.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Law of Excluded Middle Pertains to the Second Incompleteness Theorem and Its Boundary-Case Exceptions
    How the Law of Excluded Middle Pertains to the Second Incompleteness Theorem and its Boundary-Case Exceptions Dan E. Willard State University of New York .... Summary of article in Springer’s LNCS 11972, pp. 268-286 in Proc. of Logical Foundations of Computer Science - 2020 Talk was also scheduled to appear in ASL 2020 Conference, before Covid-19 forced conference cancellation S-0 : Comments about formats for these SLIDES 1 Slides 1-15 were presented at LFCS 2020 conference, meeting during Janaury 4-7, 2020, in Deerfield Florida (under a technically different title) 2 Published as refereed 19-page paper in Springer’s LNCS 11972, pp. 268-286 in Springer’s “Proceedings of Logical Foundations of Computer Science 2020” 3 Second presentaion of this talk was intended for ASL-2020 conference, before Covid-19 cancelled conference. Willard recommends you read Item 2’s 19-page paper after skimming these slides. They nicely summarize my six JSL and APAL papers. Manuscript is also more informative than the sketch outlined here. Manuscript helps one understand all of Willard’s papers 1. Main Question left UNANSWERED by G¨odel: 2nd Incomplet. Theorem indicates strong formalisms cannot verify their own consistency. ..... But Humans Presume Their Own Consistency, at least PARTIALLY, as a prerequisite for Thinking ? A Central Question: What systems are ADEQUATELY WEAK to hold some type (?) knowledge their own consistency? ONLY PARTIAL ANSWERS to this Question are Feasible because 2nd Inc Theorem is QUITE STRONG ! Let LXM = Law of Excluded Middle OurTheme: Different USES of LXM do change Breadth and LIMITATIONS of 2nd Inc Theorem 2a.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic, Ontological Neutrality, and the Law of Non-Contradiction
    Logic, Ontological Neutrality, and the Law of Non-Contradiction Achille C. Varzi Department of Philosophy, Columbia University, New York [Final version published in Elena Ficara (ed.), Contradictions. Logic, History, Actuality, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014, pp. 53–80] Abstract. As a general theory of reasoning—and as a theory of what holds true under every possi- ble circumstance—logic is supposed to be ontologically neutral. It ought to have nothing to do with questions concerning what there is, or whether there is anything at all. It is for this reason that tra- ditional Aristotelian logic, with its tacit existential presuppositions, was eventually deemed inade- quate as a canon of pure logic. And it is for this reason that modern quantification theory, too, with its residue of existentially loaded theorems and inferential patterns, has been claimed to suffer from a defect of logical purity. The law of non-contradiction rules out certain circumstances as impossi- ble—circumstances in which a statement is both true and false, or perhaps circumstances where something both is and is not the case. Is this to be regarded as a further ontological bias? If so, what does it mean to forego such a bias in the interest of greater neutrality—and ought we to do so? Logic in the Locked Room As a general theory of reasoning, and especially as a theory of what is true no mat- ter what is the case (or in every “possible world”), logic is supposed to be ontolog- ically neutral. It should be free from any metaphysical presuppositions. It ought to have nothing substantive to say concerning what there is, or whether there is any- thing at all.
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Nov 2012 Copies of Classical Logic in Intuitionistic Logic
    Copies of classical logic in intuitionistic logic Jaime Gaspar∗ 8 November 2012 Abstract Classical logic (the logic of non-constructive mathematics) is stronger than intuitionistic logic (the logic of constructive mathematics). Despite this, there are copies of classical logic in intuitionistic logic. All copies usually found in the literature are the same. This raises the question: is the copy unique? We answer negatively by presenting three different copies. 1 Philosophy 1.1 Non-constructive and constructive proofs Mathematicians commonly use an indirect method of proof called non-constructive proof: they prove the existence of an object without presenting (constructing) the object. However, may times they can also use a direct method of proof called constructive proof: to prove the existence of an object by presenting (constructing) the object. Definition 1. A non-constructive proof is a proof that proves the existence of an object with- • out presenting the object. arXiv:1211.1850v1 [math.LO] 8 Nov 2012 A constructive proof is a proof that proves the existence of an object by pre- • senting the object. From a logical point of view, a non-constructive proof uses the law of excluded middle while a constructive proof does not use the law of excluded middle. Definition 2. The law of excluded middle is the assertion “every statement is true or false”. ∗INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt, πr2, Univ Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cit´e, F-78153 Le Ches- nay, France. [email protected], www.jaimegaspar.com. Financially supported by the French Fondation Sciences Math´ematiques de Paris. This article is essentially a written version of a talk given at the 14th Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (Nancy, France, 19–26 July 2011), reporting on results in a PhD thesis [1, chapter 14] and in an article [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Three-Valued Modal Logic and the Problem of Future Contingents
    faculteit Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen Three-valued modal logic and the problem of future Contingents Bachelorthesis Mathematics August 2014 Student: R. C. Sterkenburg First supervisor: prof. dr. G.R. Renardel de Lavalette Second supervisor: prof. dr. H. L. Trentelman Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Formulating the problem of future contingents 4 2.1 Aristotle's problem . .4 2.2 Criteria any solutions should meet . .5 3Lukasiewicz' three-valued system 7 3.1 The system . .7 3.2Lukasiewicz' system and the problem of future contingents . .8 4 The system Q 10 4.1 Prior's system Q . 10 4.2 Possible world semantics for Q . 14 4.3 Q and the problem of future contingents . 16 5 The system Qt 19 5.1 Expansion of Q to a temporal system Qt . 19 5.2 Qt and the problem of future contingents . 20 6 Conclusion 23 7 Literature 24 2 1 Introduction Consider the statement `It will rain tomorrow'. Is it true now? Or false? And if it is already true now, is it then possible that is does not rain tomorrow, or has the fact that it will rain tomorrow become a necessity? And if it is necessary, why do we perceive it as if it is not, as if it just as easily could not have rained tomorrow? And if we decide it is not true nor false now, is `it will rain tomorrow or not' then still true, or is that also neither true nor false? These questions were raised by Aristotle in the famous chapter 9 of his work Περ`ι `Eρµην"´ια&, De Interpretatione in Latin, and have come to be known as the problem of future contingents.
    [Show full text]
  • Modal Logic NL for Common Language
    Modal logic NL for common language William Heartspring Abstract: Despite initial appearance, paradoxes in classical logic, when comprehension is unrestricted, do not go away even if the law of excluded middle is dropped, unless the law of noncontradiction is eliminated as well, which makes logic much less powerful. Is there an alternative way to preserve unrestricted comprehension of common language, while retaining power of classical logic? The answer is yes, when provability modal logic is utilized. Modal logic NL is constructed for this purpose. Unless a paradox is provable, usual rules of classical logic follow. The main point for modal logic NL is to tune the law of excluded middle so that we allow for φ and its negation :φ to be both false in case a paradox provably arises. Curry's paradox is resolved dierently from other paradoxes but is also resolved in modal logic NL. The changes allow for unrestricted comprehension and naïve set theory, and allow us to justify use of common language in formal sense. Contents 1 Expressiveness of Language, No-no paradox1 2 Renements to classical logic2 2.1 Role of : in Rened Not-1' 6 3 Paradoxes of classical logic examined in NL6 3.1 Liar, Russell's, Barber paradox7 3.2 Curry's paradox, Then-4 7 3.3 No-no paradox8 3.4 Knower and Fitch's Paradox9 4 Conclusion 10 1 Expressiveness of Language, No-no paradox Ideally, logic underlies both language and mathematics. However, dierent paradoxes in logic, such as the liar paradox, Russell's paradox and Fitch's paradox[1], suggest expres- siveness of common language must be restricted.
    [Show full text]
  • Existence, Meaning and the Law of Excluded Middle. a Dialogical Approach to Hermann Weyl's Philosophical Considerations
    Existence, Meaning and the Law of Excluded Middle. A dialogical approach to Hermann Weyl’s philosophical considerations Zoe Mcconaughey To cite this version: Zoe Mcconaughey. Existence, Meaning and the Law of Excluded Middle. A dialogical approach to Hermann Weyl’s philosophical considerations. Klesis - Revue philosophique, Klesis, 2020, ”Le tiers exclu” à travers les âges, 46. hal-03036825 HAL Id: hal-03036825 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03036825 Submitted on 14 Dec 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Klēsis – 2020 : 46 – « Le tiers exclu » à travers les âges EXISTENCE, MEANING AND THE LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE. A DIALOGICAL APPROACH TO HERMANN WEYL’S PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Zoe McConaughey (Université de Lille, UMR 8163 STL, and UQÀM)1 Abstract Intuitionistic logic is often presented as a proof-based approach to logic, where truth is defined as having a proof. I shall stress another dimension which is also important: that of the constitution of meaning. This dimension of meaning does not reduce to proof, be it actual or potential, as standard presentations of intuitionistic logic put it. The law of ex- cluded middle sits right at the junction between these two dimensions, proof and mean- ing: in intuitionistic logic, there is no proof for the law of excluded middle, but the law of excluded middle is a proposition that does have meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Wittgenstein's Diagonal Argument
    Chapter 2 1 Wittgenstein’s Diagonal Argument: A Variation 2 1 on Cantor and Turing 3 Juliet Floyd 4 2.1 Introduction 5 On 30 July 1947 Wittgenstein began writing what I call in what follows his “1947 6 2 remark” : 7 Turing’s ‘machines’. These machines are humans who calculate. And one might express 8 what he says also in the form of games. And the interesting games would be such as brought 9 one via certain rules to nonsensical instructions. I am thinking of games like the “racing 10 game”.3 One has received the order “Go on in the same way” when this makes no sense, 11 1Thanks are due to Per Martin-Löf and the organizers of the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Studies (SCAS) conference in his honor in Uppsala, May 2009. The audience, especially the editors of the present volume, created a stimulating occasion without which this essay would not have been written. Helpful remarks were given to me there by Göran Sundholm, Sören Stenlund, Anders Öberg, Wilfried Sieg, Kim Solin, Simo Säätelä, and Gisela Bengtsson. My understanding of the significance of Wittgenstein’s Diagonal Argument was enhanced during my stay as a fellow 2009– 2010 at the Lichtenberg-Kolleg, Georg August Universität Göttingen, especially in conversations with Felix Mühlhölzer and Akihiro Kanamori. Wolfgang Kienzler offered helpful comments before and during my presentation of some of these ideas at the Collegium Philosophicum, Friedrich Schiller Universität, Jena, April 2010. The final draft was much improved in light of comments providedUNCORRECTED by Sten Lindström, Sören Stenlund and William Tait.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Contingents, Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle Muddle
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Hertfordshire Research Archive Originally published in Analysis (Volume 64, No. 2, April 2004: 122-8). An extended version of this paper appears in chapter 3 of my A Future for Presentism (Oxford University Press, 2006) © Craig Bourne Future Contingents, Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle Muddle For whatever reason, we might think that contingent statements about the future have no determinate truth value. Aristotle, in De interpretatione IX, for instance, held that only those propositions about the future which are either necessarily true, or necessarily false, or ‘predetermined’ in some way have a determinate truth-value. This led Łukasiewicz in 1920 to construct a three-valued logic in an attempt to formalize Aristotle’s position by giving the truth-value ½ = indeterminate to future contingents and defining ‘~’, ‘&’ and ‘ ’, where 1 = true and 0 = false, as: ~ 1 0 ½ ½ 0 1 Fig 1: Łukasiewicz Negation & 1 ½ 0 1 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 0 0 0 Fig 2: Łukasiewicz Conjunction 1 ½ 0 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 0 Fig 3: Łukasiewicz Disjunction 1 Originally published in Analysis (Volume 64, No. 2, April 2004: 122-8). An extended version of this paper appears in chapter 3 of my A Future for Presentism (Oxford University Press, 2006) © Craig Bourne We can see that the purely determinate entries match the tables of the classical two-valued system; thus, what needs justification are the other entries. Let us take negation to illustrate. We may treat indeterminateness as something to be resolved one way or the other: it will eventually be either true or false.
    [Show full text]
  • Humans Do Not Reason from Contradictory Premises. the Psychological Aspects of Paraconsistency
    Synthese manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Humans do not reason from contradictory premises. The psychological aspects of paraconsistency. Konrad Rudnicki Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract The creation of paraconsistent logics have expanded the boundaries of formal logic by introducing coherent systems that tolerate contradictions without triviality. Thanks to their novel approach and rigorous formaliza- tion they have already found many applications in computer science, linguis- tics and mathematics. As a natural next step, some philosophers have also tried to answer the question if human everyday reasoning could be accurately modelled with paraconsistent logics. The purpose of this article is to argue against the notion that human reasoning is paraconsistent. Numerous findings in the area of cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience go against the hypothesis that humans tolerate contradictions in their inferences. Humans experience severe stress and confusion when confronted with contradictions (i.e., the so-called cognitive dissonance). Experiments on the ways in which humans process contradictions point out that the first thing humans do is remove or modify one of the contradictory statements. From an evolutionary perspective, contradiction is useless and even more dangerous than lack of in- formation because it takes up resources to process. Furthermore, it appears that when logicians, anthropologists or psychologists provide examples of con- tradictions in human culture and behaviour, their examples very rarely take the form of: (p ^ :p). Instead, they are often conditional statements, proba- bilistic judgments, metaphors or seemingly incompatible beliefs. At different points in time humans are definitely able to hold contradictory beliefs, but within one reasoning leading to a particular behaviour, contradiction is never tolerated.
    [Show full text]