Talk:Paradox

message: I don't think Hamlet's methodical madness would be correctly described as a paradox, but I don't want to change it myself. 124.149.38.108 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, why don't you elaborate your point a bit more? Catgut (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method to the madness 

message: if a man created a worm hole,by which he could go only 1hr back in time,goes through it and killed his own past,simply asking what would happen. ronitd 13:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  paradox ?????....... 

message: Søren Kierkegaards "Fear and Trembling" brings the religious and ethical paradox of faith/belief through Abrahams willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, whom he loves, to God. I would just recommend this book to anyone who finds an unresolved paradox interesting. What makes Abraham above the ethical, and so not a contemplating murderer?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.18.15.24 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Paradox of Abraham 

message: How would one classify an impossible directive, like one that we see all the time ...
This is a test.  Please ignore this message.
If I ignore this message, I am acknowledging it.  If I respond to it, I am ignoring it.  Thus, it's a directive that is impossible to follow.  I'd guess that this is some sort of paradox. WHPratt (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible Directive 

message: Does anyone have any information on the history of the "Vigilance Paradox"? I heard about this paradox a few days back, and can't seem to track down what it is. It's very important that I find out.
Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeperC (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "VIGILANCE PARADOX" 

message: This article is riddled with instances of self-contradiction. I think we should revise it thoroughly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.102.89 (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you're going to contradict yourself, an article about paradoxes would seem to be the best place. ;) WHPratt (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article appears to contradict itself 

message: I'll leave it to some expert to classify, but a once-good pitcher having a very bad season once said "It takes a good pitcher to lose 20 games."  
The point is not, of course, that losing games is a good thing, but that only a pitcher of proven ability will get the chance to get that many decisions.  If the team didn't have confidence in him, they'd stop using him well before 20 losses.  WHPratt (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports Paradox 

message: It can give you a head ache but with a little reading I think it makes sense.
Panpog1 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical? 

message: Slightly past half-way down the section, Logical paradox, is an example given in which a father and son are driving down the road. The surgeon does not have to be the boy's mother for the story to be non-contradictory. I suggest that the "father" mentioned at the beginning of the story might be referring to the boy's father, as in priest, in which case the boy can have two fathers without the story being contradictory.<BR>
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example given of howlers (Paradox) - alternate solution 

message: Is there any classification known as a Weed Paradox (or some similar term)?
Many herbariums and botanical institutions maintain weed gardens, for the sake of completeness, and probably to support research on controlling these.  
The defintion of "weed" usually centers about a plant that grows where is isn't wanted, where it shouldn't be growing.
So, a weed in a weed garden isn't a weed, as that's where weeds belong. Gather together enough weeds, and they cease being weeds. (Presumably, if a pretty flower pops up there, it gets removed.)
But you still want to call it a "weed collection" for obvious reasons. ;) WHPratt (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weed Paradox 

message: Among the problems we have is that the assertion that "Russell's paradox [...] showed that naive set theory was flawed." is, well, flawed. Firstly, the source cited appears to be an undergraduate dissertion which we would not normally regard as a reliable source: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Secondly the source states clearly that Russell found an inconsistency in Frege's axiomatic set theory. A later remark is "the (naïve) set theory of Frege leads to a contradiction". So the source, if reliable, only supports the claim that one particular naive set theory is flawed. The distinction between an axiomatic theory and a naive theory is not resolved.  However, I suggest that what Russell's paradox showed was that a development of set theory in which sets are identified with properties is flawed, since the property "is not a member of itself" cannot (consistently) be identified with a set.  Deltahedron (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitive improvement, you didn't have to justify it on my account. Paradoctor (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a parallel discussion going on at Talk:Naive set theory.  Deltahedron (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russell's paradox, naive set theory and sources 

message: The article opens with the definitive claim that paradoxes appear to contradict themselves. That's inconsistent with some of the classic paradoxes in philosophy as well as examples the article proceeds to give. For instance, the Ship of Theseus story doesn't contradict itself at all--it just illustrates the paradoxical idea that two things can be identical while sharing none of the same parts. Similarly, Zeno's paradox that motion is impossible doesn't contradict itself. It just contradicts what seems to be the case, namely, that sometimes things move. The same goes with the Socratic paradoxes like everyone seeks the good and weakness of will is impossible.
The problematic definition seems to be uncritically lifted from general purpose dictionaries. That's probably not a good idea, given that the dominant use of paradox as a concept is technical, viz., in the sense used by philosophy and logic.76.98.100.238 (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Appears to contradict itself": confusing and wrong definition 

message: This question has multiple answers.
The paradoxical responses are "yes", "no", and all affirmative responses.
However, we are not required to use them; we can use unsure responses, such as "I don't know". We can also use terms synonymous with "no", such as "it isn't".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.218.145 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See also false alternative --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 23:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Is the answer to this question 'No'?" 

message: This article has a Template:original research wikibox.  What original research is it alleged to contain?  — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was added in November 2014, by user . Hereby pinged. - DVdm (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: This section is very poorly written. The example sentence "This statement is false" is used to illustrate self-reference, contradiction, and vicious circularity. The example "is the answer to this question 'no'?" was examined earlier on this talk page, it is not a paradox because the answers are not limited to yes or no ("I don't know" is a valid answer). The genie example is a poor one because refusing to grant that particular wish does not mean that wishes in general cannot come true. The surgeon's son is not a paradox, it is a riddle. It has a valid answer, but many people over look it due to preconceived notions.--Khajidha (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logical paradox section 

message: The article seems abit bloated. I would suggest that "Paradox means self-contradiction", made more clear in the article. In the light of greek culture, that is how it should be used. And it is not to be used as "transcendent" either, which is something else.
Such as for instance "transcendent infiniteness", which is not a number, and not really a self-contradiction either. Indeed in this many go wrong, even people like Einstein, who though is populary believed to have opium in his pipe ;) One may indeed argue that there is no such thing as relativity quite well. Sky Charz (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The dictionaries disagree. Paradox can also mean "a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory". About relativity one my argue anything, but not here: see wp:NOTFORUM. We have Speaker's corner for that. - DVdm (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is the same bloat. Sky Charz (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you need a citation to improve the article in an enduring way. You are welcome to suggest edits, but the changes would need a citation, such as "In the view of ___" (___ means a reliable source, and the quotation). --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 13:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradox simply means self-contradiction. 

message: There are a lot of incomplete descriptions of the Monty Hall problem. Different descriptions yield different probabilities. For example, if the "common sense" is that Monty Hall will reveal the best remaining prize to keep you from picking it, then the odds favor not switching. If the "common sense" is that he will reveal the worst remaining prize, then the odds favor switching. If the "common sense" is that he will pick at random, then it depends what was revealed. 108.51.205.136 (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monty Hall Problem 

message: The article generally draws on formal logic as the basis for its conception of paradox/contradiction. There is no *dialectical* conception as we find in Hegel and Marx. For both Hegel and Marx, the world of Man, Nature and Mind is *inherently* self-contradictory. This is why, in their conception, it has movement, life, vitality, impulse. Many students of formal logic have not taken the trouble to grasp this in Hegel and Marx because they have never made a comprehensive, detailed and involved study of them. In Hegel and Marx, contradiction ('paradox') is seen as the 'engine of change' in all its forms. It is not simply 'static' or merely 'formal'  https://archive.org/details/georg-wilhelm-hegel-the-science-of-logic/mode/2up?view=theater Advancingreturns (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hegel and Marx 

message: I think this article would benefit from a short section on the origins of the idea of a paradox, which as far as I know was with Zeno of Elea, and the etymology of the word, which I think helps people grasp the meaning. My limited understanding is that 'para' means something like 'contrary to' and 'dox' comes from 'doxa' which means 'common understanding/observation/opinion'. See here. LastDodo (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins and etymology 

message: I propose we use male language when describing the barber paradox.  Per WP:GNL, gendered-language can be used in a single-gendered context: 
The barber paradox relies on the assumption that every person involved shaves their face.  Of course, some men don't shave, and some women do, but MOST men shave and MOST women don't.  I think gender neutral language introduces unnecessary confusion, whereas, if we limit the language to male language, the paradox is clearer.  Please note that the barber paradox article uses male language.   —Of the universe (say hello) 00:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, I am implementing this change. —Of the universe (say hello) 13:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barber Paradox and gender neutral language