I think it's pragmatic. Most "arguments" outside of maths and computer programming aren't made through chains of bullet-proof logic. They're more often made by

I think it's pragmatic. Most "arguments" outside of maths and computer programming aren't made through chains of bullet-proof logic. They're more often made by analogy, by authority, by appeals to shared but not universal values, and so on. As I see it, they're interested in coming up with satisfactory answers when perfect ones aren't available. If we wait until we have a universal and unimpeachable answer for what to have for dinner we'll all starve. But "proving" that perfect answers to certain questions can't be obtained, or that some imperfect answers can be satisfactory, is somewhat beside the point -- they're not in the business of proof. "Proving" things is a modernist fetish, and trite paradoxes around nothing being universal are mostly just cute jokes for entertaining undergrads :-p.