[quote="ProdglArchitect, post:12, topic:440125"]
All of their examples deal with subjective interpretation, that is, the interpretation of a set of characteristics which, when summed, produce a conclusion; but who's interpretation is dependent on viewpoint.
A couple of the examples they give is the transition state of a person moving from room to room. At one point they are in a room, at another point they are not. They claim that there must be a point during the transition when they are both in the room, and not in the room. This is no basis for the assertion that this point must exist. Viewer A may see the person as inside the room, and viewer B may see them as outside of the room, but the basis of this decision is subjective, therefore it cannot be used to say that they are both inside and outside of the room. The paradox only exists because the frame of reference from which the conclusion is being drawn is not constant. If, prior to observation, the people had decided on an objective set of criteria to dictate when a person is inside and outside of a room (i.e., an objective basis from which to measure the "truthfulness" of a statement), then this paradoxical state is impossible, because at one point they do not meet the requirements, and at the next point they do meet them.
The other issue is that all of their examples deal with multiple parts, and combining those parts into a single whole conclusion. As I said above, it is possible for the state of individual parts to shift while other parts remain true such as the person's arm is now outside of the room, while his torso is within it). However, it is not possible for the arm to be inside of the room and outside of it. When the arm is then applied to "whole" of the person, then parts of the person can be inside of the room and parts can be outside of the room; however, this does not disprove the LNC since the individual aspects which comprise the whole are still either in or out of the room.
I also find it telling that the article's author simple dismissed the primary argument against this position, one penned by Aristotle, without so much as a cursory explanation of what that arguments is. He simply says that it is convoluted and circular, without providing any evidence to back that claim up. It is generally telling when the person arguing a point is unwilling to address major arguments against their position and instead dismiss them offhand. That would be like me saying that I believe that the Earth is flat, and dismissing all the physical and observable evidence tot he contrary as forgeries not worth my time dissecting. You jsut can't do that when trying to make a scholarly point.
Self-evident truths, as are the three fundamental laws of logic, cannot be argued for or defended by logic. They can only be accepted or rejected. If not accepted then no meaningful dialogue can occur between the one who denies and the one who accepts.
For example, the "flat earth" argument is not self-evident and must be argued. On the other hand, all men are created with equal rights is self-evident.