(August 12, 2009 at 6:33 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: You just said that the criterion for falsification of the law of contradiction is exactly to show that two contradictory statements are true at the same time, in which case the law of contradiction has been contradicted, but since the law has then been contradicted, then the law does not apply and has not actually been contradicted since that would require to invoke the law of contradiction, and is still unfalsified.No, it would mean that the law of contradiction did not apply in certain circumstances. It may well continue to work for most other things in logic.
Take another example. Newtonian physics works to a degree, and can predict to a high level of accuracy. However it fails on the small scale, and Einsteinian physics replaces it. Nobody would say that Newtonian physics is completely wrong, just wrong in certain circumstances.
Anyway, your challenge was to find a way of falsifying the law of contradiction. To falsify something, you have to come up with an example which does not apply to the law. The law of contradiction says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time, so the way to falsify this would be to find something that could be both true and false at the same time.
I never said I'd found any examples that held to this, but it is a way of falsifying it. The law though is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's an attribute of our logic; logic isn't an attribute of the law.
