Talk:Paradox

Lead sentence

@Paradoctor: It's true that the source says a paradox "appears... contrary to expectations." Is it possible then that this is simply a bad (i.e. overly general) definition? I assume we'd agree that someone saying "That giraffe's face has been painted purple!" is a statement "contrary to expectations"... and yet not a paradox. Maybe we can find a better definition/source? Wolfdog (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(no need to ping me here) "painted purple!" Expectations are subjective. What is surprising to you may be old hat to someone else. Yes, that means "paradox" is subjective.

"can find a better" I don't know if you can, but why not go ahead and try. Though, if you take issue with "contrary to expectations", you take issue with a core aspect of paradox, IMO. I recommend you look at a few dictionaries and philosophical texts discussing the concept. Mathematical sources tend to have a too narrow focus here, IMO. Happy hunting, Paradoctor (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand the subjectivity; almost everything is subjective, of course. In that vein, you'll recall that my edit deliberately avoided using any "expectations" talk at all. My painted-purple statement is not self-contradictory (therefore not a paradox), whereas, for example, "standing is more tiring than walking" at least arguably is. It seems to me that the core aspect isn't "contrary to (subjective) expectations" but rather "contrary to valid logical reasoning". Anyway, I'll do some digging at some point. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If we look at Lexico (Oxford), we see that contradiction is, in fact, the core of each of the three definitions given. Nothing about expectations given. Wolfdog (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Not all sources are complete (or competent). Surely that is not the only source you could find, apart from the ones already in the article? Paradoctor (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Oxford University Press is about as authoritative as it gets, but whatever you say! That's literally all the sources I've looked at so far, and I was immediately validated. So, a pretty promising first look! Wolfdog (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Post-revert: Once again, I disagree with your revert here. Even veridical paradoxes align nicely to the idea of "contradiction" or "self-contradiction". A veridical paradox is a "logically self-contradictory statement" (exactly as I defined) that is, nevertheless, true. So actually it perfectly fits within my reduced definition. Yet again, "one's expectations", though perhaps common, are neither necessary nor sufficient to the definition of paradox.Wolfdog (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Added SEP citation. Paradoctor (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wolfdog! Random Wikipedia user here. I agree with your sentiment, particularly given the first and last sentences of the body run slightly contrary to one another (the first states a paradox may be "a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation.", meanwhile the last sentence states "Informally, the term paradox is often used to describe a counterintuitive result."

It seems out of Wikipedia norms to not state that an informal use of a term (particularly one related to logic) is, in fact, informal, in the lede only to later restate the informal nature of that portion of the lede.

Could I propose:

"A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or, informally, a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation."

And simple toss the last sentence, avoiding this whole...kerfuffle? ~2025-40689-80 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Found a simpler solution. Paradoctor (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hegel and Marx

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)

Origins and etymology

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)

Paradox is a seeming contradiction

A contradiction can be a seeming paradox.The latter might require a new term other than paradox.

Science must per definition be completely consistent in terms, definitions, and descriptions.

Paradox is incorrectly because not unambigiously defined in science when also meaning a contradiction. Gerhard Ris (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We go by the sources, not what we think should be. And ambiguity does exist in science. Lastly, words can have several meanings, that's quite normal. HTH, Paradoctor (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary: A statement or proposition which on the face of it seems self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance with common sense, though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well-founded (or, according to some, though it is essentially true).

"We go by the sources" is circular argument fallacy. "Science" defines the exact opposite.

Science, in the courts of law, and schools all elementary terms such as paradox must be completely consistent. Otherwise it's a pseudo scientific con job. Gerhard Ris (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We do in fact go by the sources here, see WP:V, WP:NOR. If you have objections to that Wikipedia may not be for you. MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary is a reliable source. The obvious fact that science uses paradox in both opposite ways must show explicitely in Wikipedia everytime the word paradox is defined. Otherwise under Dutch law it's a con job. Also tricking judges when scientists as legal experts state something is a paradox meaning a contradiction and the judges understand it as a seeming contradiction. Wikipedia must abide by the laws of decent countries. Gerhard Ris (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

How many definitions of "paradox" does the OED list? For comparison, Merriam-Webster currently lists five. Among them are

• "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true"
• "a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true"

So M-W states that "paradox" can denote true statements as well as self-contradictory statements. A reliable source, no less.

I suggest if you want changes made to the article, you explicitly state what changes you want made, so we have something we can discuss without having to decide unsolved issues in the philosophy of science. Paradoctor (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, just add your source to the article at the beginning of the article.

Otherwise Wikipedia infringes on an other sourse namely the law in most democratic states.

An enciclopedia should be trustworthy. Thus this should be corrected in all languages.

As a warning that science mostly uses paradox to mean a contradiction and and others mostly as a truth.

The article now does as if only the scientific one is correct.

You obviously care about the form. I don't. I simply point to a serious legal and moral shortcomming. To which you so aptly provide the source as proof thereof. Gerhard Ris (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing legal or moral about the definitions that you can find here, among which the Oxford one. - DVdm (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

try any book of civil or penal law as a valid source. Performing con jobs is illegal in any legal system.

Wikipedia states in this article a paradox is always untrue. Yet Webster states also meaning untrue and Oxford Dictionaries as always true.

Doing this now knowingly makes Wikipedia liable to being succesfully sued when someone shows to have damages due to presenting willfull lies as not the whole truth. Ergo, fix it. Gerhard Ris (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You are aware that we edit by WP:CONSENSUS? The discussion so far has made it clear that the consensus is that there is no issue here.

If you still feel this is worthy of your time, I suggest you contact WMF. Paradoctor (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Barber Paradox and gender neutral language

I propose we use male language when describing the barber paradox. Per WP:GNL, gendered-language can be used in a single-gendered context:

Cases where all referents are of one gender (e.g. when talking about an all-female school it is unnecessary to alter "If any student broke that rule, she was severely punished" to "Any student who broke the rule was severely punished").

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. @Paradoctor: —Of the universe (say hello) 00:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I am implementing this change. —Of the universe (say hello) 13:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Metaphysics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2025 and 3 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elephantsforlife (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CA9725, VerticalReds.

— Assignment last updated by GPenderg (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

"Counterintuitively" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Counterintuitively has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 17 § not all that intuitive until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

"Self-proving" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Self-proving has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 17 § Self-proving until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

"Erroneous intuitions" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Erroneous intuitions has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 17 § Erroneous intuitions until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 21:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Paradoxes v. expected outcome

The reason there is a distinction between semantic paradox and rational paradox is well -described by B. Russell.

This version of the sentence using terminology that fails to mention this difference in set would be incomplete or a misdirection. Augmented Seventh (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)