Argument from contradiction

Maybe you could call this the argument from contradiction. My argument stems from the observation that on any significant topic people hold a great variety of opinions. Many of these held opinions contradict many other held opinions. Now, they can’t all be right. It’s possible that no opinion is right, at least in whole, and maybe not even in part.

Given the huge number of people and the huge number of differing opinions, it follows that most opinions cannot be true due to the various and contradictory views.

That there is some individual who only believes correct things is so unlikely that we can dismiss it; the chance that this is the case is vanishingly small. There are no omniscient people. There are probably no omniscient beings. I not sure what it would mean to be omniscient, but in any case contradictions abound.

There are far more ways of being wrong than being right and no one has a good grasp on the truth of significant issues.

“In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p).” – Taken from

One thought on “Argument from contradiction

  1. From ChatGPT

    “Your argument is essentially that the sheer number of contradictory opinions held by people on a given topic makes it unlikely that any one of those opinions is entirely true, and that it is therefore more likely that none of them are entirely true. You suggest that there is no one who only believes correct things, and that contradictions abound, making it difficult to arrive at a definitive truth on many significant issues.

    Your argument seems to be consistent with the law of non-contradiction, which states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle of logic, and it is often used to evaluate the validity of arguments.

    However, it is important to note that just because there are many contradictory opinions on a given topic does not necessarily mean that none of them are entirely true. It is possible for different perspectives to provide valuable insights and partial truths, even if they contradict one another. It is also possible for people to hold beliefs that are not entirely true, but that contain elements of truth.

    Moreover, the fact that no one is omniscient does not mean that we cannot make progress towards understanding the truth about significant issues. Through dialogue, debate, and inquiry, we can refine our understanding of complex topics and come to a better understanding of what is true.

    In conclusion, while your argument is consistent with the law of non-contradiction, it is important to approach the issue of contradictory opinions with a degree of nuance and openness to different perspectives. Contradictions and partial truths do not necessarily negate the possibility of arriving at a more complete understanding of complex issues.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *