Trivialism

Theoretical arguments and anecdotes have been offered for trivialism to contrast it with theories such as modal realism, dialetheism and paraconsistent logics.

In logic, from this meaning, a "trivial" theory is something regarded as defective in the face of a complex phenomenon that needs to be completely represented.

[3] This is due to it being unable to produce a sound argument through the principle of explosion and it being considered an absurdity (reductio ad absurdum).

[6] There are theoretical arguments for trivialism argued from the position of a devil's advocate: Paul Kabay has argued for trivialism in "On the Plenitude of Truth" from the following: Above, possibilism (modal realism; related to possible worlds) is the oft-debated theory that every proposition is possible.

[6][9] Priest argues this by the following in Doubt Truth to Be a Liar: "One cannot intend to act in such a way as to bring about some state of affairs, s, if one believes s already to hold.

Due to their suspension of determination upon striking equipollence between claims, the Pyrrhonist has also remained subject to apraxia charges.

He mentions that Aristotle in his book Metaphysics appears to suggest that Heraclitus and Anaxagoras advocated trivialism.

"[4]: 40–41 Jody Azzouni is a purported advocate of trivialism in his article The Strengthened Liar by claiming that natural language is trivial and inconsistent through the existence of the liar paradox ("This sentence is false"), and claiming that natural language has developed without central direction.

"[4]: 42 [13][14] The Greek philosopher Anaxagoras is suggested as a possible trivialist by Graham Priest in his 2005 book Doubt Truth to Be a Liar.

"[6] Luis Estrada-González in "Models of Possibilism and Trivialism" lists eight types of anti-trivialism (or non-trivialism) through the use of possible worlds: