You used to be able to win by paradox - I think that got boring after a while which is why it's gone - but two CFJs of the type you're talking still wouldn't have met the bar for a win back then methinks. On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 20:48 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > > OK so let me confirm to see if I get it and sorry for my insistence: > > > > So if I had: > > > > CFJ 1: A is True. > > CFJ 2: A is False. > > > > I can reductio ad absurdum (although a really short one) CFJ 1 by just > presenting CFJ 2, and CFJ 2 by presenting CFJ 1. > > > > With that, I would be barred from deducing anything from those ad > absurdum (i.e. attempt to summon Principle of Explosion?) > > It would be just as if two people disagreed with each other, each > asserting their opinion. Then you moot one of them, and if it's > upheld it's the guiding one, otherwise the other one is. > > Or, you could simply call CFJ 3. We would go by the most recent one. > > >
