@user170039 Thanks. I believe I had read that article a long time ago. It at least does not attempt to give the incorrect motivation for inconsistent or paraconsistent logic that the other article had. But the SEP article weirdly says about Weber's ideas that "this is invigorating new ground". In my opinion, a lot of these online articles are severely biased if not outright wrong. In the case of paraconsistent logic, a common interpretation is as closed set logic.

> Closed set logic is the stipulation that whatever holds, holds on closed sets of points. [...] It is thus customary to take the smallest closed set containing the set-theoretic complement. [...] at the boundary both A and not-A holds.

I wonder what kind of hoops these people jump through to attempt to justify that such things are meaningful in the real world.