Dialetheism, defended by Graham Priest, holds that some contradictions are true—statements that are both true and false. This challenges the law of non-contradiction, foundational to Western logic. Priest argues that the liar paradox ('This sentence is false') reveals genuine contradictions. Critics respond that accepting contradictions collapses all distinctions—if contradictions can be true, what prevents everything from being true? Priest's paraconsistent logics aim to contain contradictions without explosive consequences.
It can be inferred from the text that
no paradoxes exist in logic
challenging foundational logical principles may require developing alternative logical frameworks to avoid problematic consequences
all logicians accept that contradictions can be true
the liar paradox has been completely resolved without controversy
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Accepting contradictions requires paraconsistent logics to avoid explosion.
- Context clues: Critics worry accepting contradictions makes everything true; Priest develops paraconsistent logics to contain contradictions.
- Meaning: Challenging core principles requires new frameworks to manage consequences.
- Verify: The need to "contain contradictions without explosive consequences" shows new frameworks are required.
💡 Strategy: When challenging a foundation requires new tools to avoid problems, infer need for alternative frameworks.
Choice A is incorrect because the liar paradox is explicitly discussed as a paradox. Choice C is incorrect because critics "respond" against dialetheism. Choice D is incorrect because disagreement continues about how to handle the paradox.