Even in truth there are grey areas. You read a scientific paper and discover a serious error in a side topic the paper only had a short digress about. Would that invalidate the whole thing?
And where do you draw the line of invalidating errors and not so important errors (Sorites Paradox)?
This said, there are cases where a contradiction undermines the whole thing. I am a legal and one law professor warned us students, if we say A is valid but not A as well, he will dismiss the complete answer.
Once I got a contradictory information from a government agency and I was forced to follow up with a request for clarification. That's bad.
And where do you draw the line of invalidating errors and not so important errors (Sorites Paradox)?
This said, there are cases where a contradiction undermines the whole thing. I am a legal and one law professor warned us students, if we say A is valid but not A as well, he will dismiss the complete answer.
Once I got a contradictory information from a government agency and I was forced to follow up with a request for clarification. That's bad.