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.
