This book offers a defense against non-classical approaches to the paradoxes. The author argues that, despite appearances, the paradoxes give no reason at all to reject classical logic. In fact, he believes classical solutions fare better than non-classical ones with respect to key tests like Curry’s Paradox, a Liar-like paradox that dialetheists are forced to solve in a way totally disjoint from their solution to the Liar. Graham Priest’s In Contradiction was the first major work that advocated the use of non-classical approaches. Since then, these views have moved into the philosophical mainstream. Much of this movement is fueled by a widespread sense that these logically heterodox solutions get to the real nub of the issue. They lack the ad hoc feel of many other solutions to the paradoxes. The author believes that it's long past time for a response to these attacks against classical orthodoxy. He presents a non-logically-revisionary solution to the paradoxes. This title offers a literal way of cashing out the disquotation metaphor. While the details of the view are novel, the idea has a pre-history in the relevant literature. The author examines objections in detail. He rejects each in turn and concludes by comparing the virtues of his logically orthodox approach with those of the paraconsistent and paracomplete competition.

The topic of vagueness re-emerged in the twentieth century from relative obscurity. It deals with the phenomenon in natural language that manifests itself in apparent semantic indeterminacy - the indeterminacy, for example, that arises when asked to draw the line between the tall and non-tall, or the drunk and the sober. An associated paradox emphasises the challenging nature of the phenomenon, presenting one of the most resilient paradoxes of logic. The apparent threat posed for orthodox theories of the semantics and logic of natural language has become the focus of intense philosophical scrutiny amongst philosophers and non-philosophers alike. Vagueness, Logic and Ontology explores various responses to the philosophical problems generated by vagueness and its associated paradox - the sorites paradox. Hyde argues that the theoretical space in which vagueness is sometimes ontologically grounded and modelled by a truth-functional logic affords a coherent response to the problems posed by vagueness. Showing how the concept of vagueness can be applied to the world, Hyde's ontological account proposes a substantial revision of orthodox semantics, metaphysics and logic. This book will be of particular interest to readers in philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science and geographic information systems.

This book is the product of a collaboration stretching the years 2007-10, whose initial fruit was a paper on “Plenum Theory” published in Nous. The work grew out of the author’s conviction that standard set theory, which had evolved to meet the needs of mathematics, was not fully adequate to the less abstractly geared and rigidly determine needs of less finalized ranges of inquiry and deliberation.

The Law of Non-Contradiction-that no contradiction can be true-has been a seemingly unassailable dogma since the work of Aristotle, in Book Gamma of the Metaphysics. It is an assumption challenged from a variety of angles in this collection of original papers. Twenty-three of the world's leading experts investigate the 'law', considering arguments for and against it and discussing methodological issues that arise whenever we question the legitimacy of logical principles. The result is a balanced inquiry into a venerable principle of logic, one that raises questions at the very centre of logic itself. The aim of this volume is to present a comprehensive debate about the Law of Non-Contradiction, from discussions as to how the law is to be understood, to reasons for accepting or re-thinking the law, and to issues that raise challenges to the law, such as the Liar Paradox, and a 'dialetheic' resolution of that paradox. One of the editors contributes an introduction which surveys the issues and serves to frame the debate. This collection will be of interest to anyone working on philosophical logic, and to anyone who has ever wondered about the status of logical laws and about how one might proceed to mount arguments for or against them.

This book covers work written by leading scholars from different schools within the research area of paraconsistency. The authors critically investigate how contemporary paraconsistent logics can be used to better understand human reasoning in science and mathematics. Offering a variety of perspectives, they shed a new light on the question of whether paraconsistent logics can function as the underlying logics of inconsistent but useful scientific and mathematical theories. The great variety of paraconsistent logics gives rise to various, interrelated questions, such as what are the desiderata a paraconsistent logic should satisfy, is there prospect of a universal approach to paraconsistent reasoning with axiomatic theories, and to what extent is reasoning about sets structurally analogous to reasoning about truth. Furthermore, the authors consider paraconsistent logic’s status as either a normative or descriptive discipline (or one which falls in between) and which inconsistent but non-trivial axiomatic theories are well understood by which types of paraconsistent approaches. This volume addresses such questions from different perspectives in order to (i) obtain a representative overview of the state of the art in the philosophical debate on paraconsistency, (ii) come up with fresh ideas for the future of paraconsistency, and most importantly (iii) provide paraconsistent logic with a stronger philosophical foundation, taking into account the developments within the different schools of paraconsistency.

The present book discusses all aspects of paraconsistent logic, including the latest findings, and its various systems. It includes papers by leading international researchers, which address the subject in many different ways: development of abstract paraconsistent systems and new theorems about them; studies of the connections between these systems and other non-classical logics, such as non-monotonic, many-valued, relevant, paracomplete and fuzzy logics; philosophical interpretations of these constructions; and applications to other sciences, in particular quantum physics and mathematics. Reasoning with contradictions is the challenge of paraconsistent logic. The book will be of interest to graduate students and researchers working in mathematical logic, computer science, philosophical logic, linguistics and physics.