Paradox of entailment

The paradox of entailment is an apparent paradox derived from the observation that, in classical logic, inconsistent premises always make an argument valid; that is, inconsistent premises imply any conclusion at all. This seems paradoxical, as it suggests that the following is a good argument:

Assessment

The paradox of entailment is perfectly true; it is what Quine has called a "veridical" paradox. Its seeming strangeness comes from the fact that the definition of validity in classical logic does not always agree with the use of the term in ordinary language. Suggested improvements to the notion of logical validity include strict implication and relevant implication.

Related Topics:
Quine - Classical logic - Strict implication - Relevant implication

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~