3 ms·

I like that question! Hmm, I'd say to be a paradox, it needs to be so unexpected that it's an apparent contradiction. Merely slightly unexpected is not suffici

I like that question! Hmm, I'd say to be a paradox, it needs to be so unexpected that it's an apparent contradiction. Merely slightly unexpected is not sufficient. "I did not expect you to arrive so early" is not a paradox. "The left facing arrow on your website takes me to the next page." whilst both unexpected and unintuitive, is not a paradox. Some edge cases: "I am speaking to you in person whilst I am watching you on a live broadcast on television" is maybe a paradox. A statement like "Fruit juice is as unhealthy as sugary soft drinks." could be a paradox for many people.

jamesrcole 7y ago
> I'd say to be a paradox, it needs to be so unexpected that it's an apparent contradiction. Thinking about the topic of paradoxes some more, I would say part of my objection is in the following. You could distinguish between two sorts of paradoxes 1) where the phenomenon P itself is genuinely paradoxical 2) where the phenomenon P itself is not itself paradoxical, but where our knowledge of the world is such that our picture of P appears to be paradoxical. In cases of 2), I object to saying that P is paradoxical. The reason for my objection is that doing so would be confusing the map for the territory. What is apparently paradoxical really has nothing to do with P itself. It is all a matter of a particular person's knowledge relating to P. In those cases, P is in no way paradoxical, and it is misleading to call it paradoxical. It would be less misleading to say that some group of people have flawed knowledge relating to P such that there is an apparent contradiction in their knowledge. In short, in cases of 2), P is not paradoxical, rather, certain people's beliefs about P contain illusory contradictions.
- pure-awesome 7y ago
  Calling something a "paradox" is statement about the map, and is relative to a person. I.e., something can be paradoxical to you but not to me. Calling something a "contradiction", on the other hand, is a statement about the territory. > some group of people have flawed knowledge relating to P such that there is an apparent contradiction in their knowledge. > certain people's beliefs about P contain illusory contradictions. These are both (specific forms of) paradoxes. Actual contradiction is also (a different, specific form of) paradox. This is a common usage of the word paradox, and is not incorrect, but "apparent contradiction" is also in common use , also correct, and is the way in which the word is used in the term "Moravec's Paradox". EDIT: Both usages of the term are compatible, in the same way that "dog" and "Labrador" are both correct terms with which to refer to a Labrador (but only one is correct when referring to, e.g., a Husky).
  - jamesrcole 7y ago
    I'm arguing that it is neither paradoxical nor contradictory, and that there is an error (outlined in my initial comment) in the maps in which it seems such.

jamesrcole 7y ago

> I'd say to be a paradox, it needs to be so unexpected that it's an apparent contradiction. Thinking about the topic of paradoxes some more, I would say part of my objection is in the following. You could distinguish between two sorts of paradoxes 1) where the phenomenon P itself is genuinely paradoxical 2) where the phenomenon P itself is not itself paradoxical, but where our knowledge of the world is such that our picture of P appears to be paradoxical. In cases of 2), I object to saying that P is paradoxical. The reason for my objection is that doing so would be confusing the map for the territory. What is apparently paradoxical really has nothing to do with P itself. It is all a matter of a particular person's knowledge relating to P. In those cases, P is in no way paradoxical, and it is misleading to call it paradoxical. It would be less misleading to say that some group of people have flawed knowledge relating to P such that there is an apparent contradiction in their knowledge. In short, in cases of 2), P is not paradoxical, rather, certain people's beliefs about P contain illusory contradictions.

pure-awesome 7y ago
Calling something a "paradox" is statement about the map, and is relative to a person. I.e., something can be paradoxical to you but not to me. Calling something a "contradiction", on the other hand, is a statement about the territory. > some group of people have flawed knowledge relating to P such that there is an apparent contradiction in their knowledge. > certain people's beliefs about P contain illusory contradictions. These are both (specific forms of) paradoxes. Actual contradiction is also (a different, specific form of) paradox. This is a common usage of the word paradox, and is not incorrect, but "apparent contradiction" is also in common use , also correct, and is the way in which the word is used in the term "Moravec's Paradox". EDIT: Both usages of the term are compatible, in the same way that "dog" and "Labrador" are both correct terms with which to refer to a Labrador (but only one is correct when referring to, e.g., a Husky).
- jamesrcole 7y ago
  I'm arguing that it is neither paradoxical nor contradictory, and that there is an error (outlined in my initial comment) in the maps in which it seems such.