Great lecture. Really appreciate your work.

It is interesting. I agree that one can throw out the principle of explosion. However, I am not very sure that this commits us with the acceptance of the truth of p and of ~p. My problem is with the example of movement is that it seems senseless that there is and there is not a movement in a moment of time since a moment is infinitesimal and the concept of movement is made to be applied to a length of time. My problem with the database example is that it only works if we assume that it is much bigger than p and ~p. Right or wrong, original ideas have dialectical interest in philosophy,

I enjoyed your podcasts with rationally speaking years ago good chemistry with them . When I noticed more logos than a NASCAR driver I said to myself somebody worships capitalism here get ready for something deceptive in a corporate manner . Money is a spoiler once again .

If you can give me even a single example of a statement that is true, while its negation is also true, then I will consider taking "paraconsistent logic" seriously. Otherwise, I accuse you of perpetuating a fraud. If your information contains contradictions, clean up the information before trying to reason about it. A thing is itself, period. If your information tells you that it is not, the problem is with your information, or how you have interpreted it -- not an indication that contradictions actually exist in "reality." Perhaps philosophers (and logicians) are driven to such shenanigans by desperation. After all, they need to eat. And after all, they have been unable to countenance the truth that is indicated by their information. Instead, they devise ever more complicated systems of evasion and denial. They have thus misled and corrupted generations of students, and contributed to the general decline in intellectual and moral standards in society, which weaken it and will ultimately destroy it if not reversed. Socrates was condemned to death for less.