The Law of Non-Contradiction. Try going against this law and you may find how figured-out, in the bag, dusted and done it is. Tremendously useful.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is manifestly false in the arena of legal reasoning, at least in common-law jurisdictions such as the United States. Given just about any desired conclusion, one can come up with a logically valid legal argument in favor of it.. (I can’t speak for how things are done in civil law jurisdictions, such as France.)
Unless you’re dealing with Intuitionistic logic:
Semantically, intuitionistic logic is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are not admitted as axioms.
In intuitionistic logic, it is still the case that nothing can be both true and false.
Sorry, misread your comment and thought you referred to the law of excluded middle. The problem with reading while I should be sleeping.
The Law of Non-Contradiction. Try going against this law and you may find how figured-out, in the bag, dusted and done it is. Tremendously useful.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is manifestly false in the arena of legal reasoning, at least in common-law jurisdictions such as the United States. Given just about any desired conclusion, one can come up with a logically valid legal argument in favor of it.. (I can’t speak for how things are done in civil law jurisdictions, such as France.)
Unless you’re dealing with Intuitionistic logic:
In intuitionistic logic, it is still the case that nothing can be both true and false.
Sorry, misread your comment and thought you referred to the law of excluded middle. The problem with reading while I should be sleeping.