[FOM] relevant logic and paraconsitent logic

[Joseph Vidal-Rosset]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

Reading this paper from Priest and Tanaka : 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
I would be glad if experts in Logic of this list would be kind enough
to develop on the list the links between paraconsistent logic and
relevant logic. 

My request is mainly motivated by a logico-philosophical position: 

(1) I feel uneasy with logical systems accepting "true contradictions"
(paraconsistent logics), but 

(2) I willingly accept the idea of a system like IR where neither 
(p & ~p)-> q nor (p & ~p) -> ~q are not valid deductions and where
paradoxes of material and strict implication are avoided. 

Apart from the clarification I still need about paraconsitent logics, I
would be thankful to f.o.m. subsrcibers if they could help me to reply
technically to this logical question: if I accept relevant logic am I
involved to accept paraconsitent logic? If (p & ~p) -> q is not valid,
hence (p & ~p) must be true, or can I avoid this conclusion with the
rejection of the universality of Bivalence principle or is there
another way out? 

I need help. Of course I believe that logico-philosophical polemics on
this topic will be welcome, because we are on the FOM list. :)

Thanks,

- -- 
Joseph Vidal-Rosset
Université de Nancy 2
Département de philosophie
Bd Albert 1er
F-54000 Nancy

page web: http://jvrosset.free.fr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEBXa5FVqVy0eTtT8RAnxzAJ9RgRIxywbzHwxB3tYBrErSFBtzbQCfZDFJ
QRQSgGMtpYjKZ5jVpNcANtI=
=dHTY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----