Switch to: References

Citations of:

Facing inconsistency: Theories and our relations to them

Michaelis Michael

Episteme 10 (4):351-367 (2013)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.

Information and Veridicality: Information Processing and the Bar-Hillel/Carnap Paradox.Nir Fresco & Michaelis Michael - 2016 - Philosophy of Science 83 (1):131-151.details Floridi’s Theory of Strongly Semantic Information posits the Veridicality Thesis. One motivation is that it can serve as a foundation for information-based epistemology being an alternative to the tripartite theory of knowledge. However, the Veridicality thesis is false, if ‘information’ is to play an explanatory role in human cognition. Another motivation is avoiding the so-called Bar-Hillel/Carnap paradox. But this paradox only seems paradoxical, if ‘information’ and ‘informativeness’ are synonymous, logic is a theory of inference, or validity suffices for rational inference; (...) a, b, and c are false. (shrink) Download Export citation Bookmark 3 citations
On a “most telling” argument for paraconsistent logic.Michaelis Michael - 2016 - Synthese 193 (10).details Priest and others have presented their “most telling” argument for paraconsistent logic: that only paraconsistent logics allow non-trivial inconsistent theories. This is a very prevalent argument; occurring as it does in the work of many relevant and more generally paraconsistent logicians. However this argument can be shown to be unsuccessful. There is a crucial ambiguity in the notion of non-triviality. Disambiguated the most telling reason for paraconsistent logics is either question-begging or mistaken. This highlights an important confusion about the role (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 11 citations
In Pursuit of the Non-Trivial.Colin R. Caret - 2021 - Episteme 18 (2):282-297.details This paper is about the underlying logical principles of scientific theories. In particular, it concerns ex contradictione quodlibet (ECQ) the principle that anything follows from a contradiction. ECQ is valid according to classical logic, but invalid according to paraconsistent logics. Some advocates of paraconsistency claim that there are ‘real’ inconsistent theories that do not erupt with completely indiscriminate, absurd commitments. They take this as evidence in favor of paraconsistency. Michael (2016) calls this the non-triviality strategy (NTS). He argues that this (...) Download Export citation Bookmark 1 citation

1