2
   

Paradoxes

 
 
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 08:07 pm
Can a paradox be an exception to the rule of a true statement, or true rule? What can they signify, and when are they proof that a rule cannot be true?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,136 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 08:19 pm
If we go to the etimology of the word [para (beyond) doxa (popular opinion)], then a paradox is a statement that is not considered to be true, but can (partly of totally) hold truth in it.

The key is that "not considered to be true" is different than "false". That the doxa, popular opinion, can be wrong.
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 08:29 pm
So in essence, what we consider a paradox to us, may not be a paradox to another person, consdiderign we are the popular opinion.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 08:30 pm
Exactly.
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 08:34 pm
So with that in mind, something like Zeno's paradoxes may not be a paradox nowadays.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 08:39 pm
Paradoxes may (or may not) become paradygms. (sp?)
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 04:34 am
A paradox to me is something that seems self-contradictory at first glance yet turns out not to be.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 06:23 am
antibuddha

I disagree. A paradox must lead us to a dead end.
But we must distinguish between paradoxes and what the greeks called "aporia". Zeno formulated aporias.
A paradox would be the the example of Russel, concerning Fregge's logic of arithmetic. Or in a similar case, the paradox of the "liar".

This is why I don't think correct the mathematical solution of Zeno's aporias. Those aporias were not mathematical. An aporia must be solved within it's own context.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 09:54 am
val wrote:
I disagree. A paradox must lead us to a dead end.
But we must distinguish between paradoxes and what the greeks called "aporia". Zeno formulated aporias.
A paradox would be the the example of Russel, concerning Fregge's logic of arithmetic. Or in a similar case, the paradox of the "liar".

I've never heard of that distinction before, and, frankly, I'm not convinced that you have identified any meaningful difference (I tend to agree with antibuddha: a paradox is an apparent contradiction). Are you relying upon someone else, or did you develop that distinction on your own?
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:02 am
Is that a paradigm shift, or are you just happy to see me?
0 Replies
 
Pantalones
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 02:37 pm
Both antibuddah and val are correct.

Zeno's paradox is an example of antibuddah's definition. While Newcomb's paradox is an example of val's.


Both can be found here:

http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/para.html
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 04:54 pm
Joe

It is only my opinion. But in the case of Zeno he used some "aporias" in order to show that those who claimed that Parmenide's theory of the Being lead to absurd conclusions, were using a reasoning even more absurd.
I don't think Zeno took those aporias too seriously, at least if we consider that Plato's dialogue "Parmenides" has some hystorical evidence.
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 10:18 pm
I'm not really too sure.

In this case I was simply stating my own personal understanding and usage of the word. More of an acceptation than a definition.

Just remember people that there is no fixed meaning in english language, it evolves and changes, dictionaries are only the acceptations of a particular frozen moment of time.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 03:25 am
antibuddha

Yes, that is true. I remember Wittgenstein with the definitions of the word "game": no dictionary can give a definition able to include all games.
0 Replies
 
Pantalones
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 02:40 pm
val wrote:
Joe

It is only my opinion. But in the case of Zeno he used some "aporias" in order to show that those who claimed that Parmenide's theory of the Being lead to absurd conclusions, were using a reasoning even more absurd.
I don't think Zeno took those aporias too seriously, at least if we consider that Plato's dialogue "Parmenides" has some hystorical evidence.


I agree, there are many solutions for paradoxes, including their definition, that end up being opinions.
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 09:57 pm
What about the opinions that end up being solutions?
0 Replies
 
Pantalones
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2005 02:59 pm
CarbonSystem wrote:
What about the opinions that end up being solutions?


There must be a proof in between.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Paradoxes
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/22/2020 at 07:31:06