Contradiction reasoning (logic)

Contradiction reasoning is the process of deducing the correct answer based on contradiction of fact. It also shows where one should inquire to find further contradictions and lies, and preferrably the source and reason of the contradictions and lies.

Usage
Say Charlie says Quack the duck is blue, but we have evidence from an expert in ducks, the duckologist, that Quack the duck, is in-fact, red.

Using RAVEN we might side with the duckologist based on credibility, but this could be an appeal to authority fallacy.

The duckologist might not actually be a duckologist, he might be a dismissed duckologist, corrupt or bribed to lie about duckology, or simply incorrect as duckology is incomplete or the duckologist is simply wrong.

Using contradiction reasoning, we can infer at least one or even both are lying/incorrect about Quack the duck. This means at least one, or both, are untrustworthy.

Contradiction trace
Contradictions give a direction of where to conduct inquiry to expose further contradictions. We know that either one or both are lying, so we now have to trace the contradiction until we find the right answer (or discover both are incorrect).

There are numerous ways to do this. We might use a man-in-the-middle attack by mentioning to the duckologist, Charlie's statement (to see what the duckologist has to say about it), or we might mention the duckologist's statement to Charlie (to see what Charlie has to say about the duckologist).

We might use a sub-referencing attack to see if we can expose any corruption or untrustworthiness in either Charlie or the duckologist or both (we may pass the information across to the other person as part of the man-in-the-middle attack. So if we find the duckologist is corrupt, we might pass it to Charlie for comment, and if we find Charlie is corrupt, we might pass that to the duckologist for comment).

We aim to play Charlie off of the duckologist so the truth of the situation can emerge (without expending the unnecessary effort of defending either side out of ignorance as to their position). Charlie and the duckologist will likely expose flaws in each other's arguments, presenting further contradictions to analyse, and thus trace (they likely have in-depth knowledge of the subject that we don't, so allowing them to debate gives us an opportunity to learn).

We may then opt to use a bi-logic trap to explore whoever is possibly the liar ourselves to see if we can expose the origin of their intention (doing this allows group immunity to occur).