(August 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Then it is not a falsification of it which you are speaking of. If there could be two contradictory true statements, then the common truth of those statements would be a violation of the law of contradiction, and those statements could not be said to presuppose the law of contradiction, a law that contradicts the statements themselves, a fact that denies the statements their possibility of contradicting the law of contradiction, since that requires the application of the law of contradiction, a law that is in direct contradiction with the statements and unapplicable.Methinks you have a twisted definition of "falsify"; that or I misunderstood you.
For something to be falsifiable, it must be demonstrated how it could be false, not how it is false. For instance, the theory of Evolution is falsifiable because (as that famous quote goes) "Fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian" would disprove the current theory.
However, fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian could be explained by an adjustment to the theory, since Evolution is backed up by various facts in science. It would be the theory that needs an adjustment.
I never claimed that I had falsified the law of contradiction, but the only way to falsify it is to find two contradictory statements that are both true at the same time. This should be obvious, as the law of contradiction says this cannot happen. If it can, then the law is falsified.
Q.E.D
