[Guille]

Are they related to reality? Do they really exist in the physical realm out of our minds? Are the relative? (for example, is something which was a fallacy 100 years ago, isn't any more now?)

Definatelly our minds are not enough creative as to develop thought disconnected from reality. Therefore, paradoxes and fallacies must be related to reality somehow. or better, they are related to our view of reality, whichis not exactly the things themselves. What do you think?

[michellemfry]

A fallacy is a misleading or illusory argument. A sophism is a fallacy designed to decieve. A paradox is a tenet or proposition contrary to recieved opinion, Also, an assertion or sentiment seemingly contradictory. A paradox is opposed to common sense.

It is only related to reality in that it is opposed to it.

It is the sophism that is the most difficult to comrehend. Why would the mind design a fallacy to decieve? Your questions about are they relative, I cannot answer. Maybe someone else can bring you the answer you seek.

[Guille]

Michelle,

I just to think that paradoxes have no relation to the how the world is, and that they are not part of how nature is. But now I don't know what do think. For example, if I say "It is forbidden to firbid" then it wouldn't make sense but it could happen. There much more examples: "Everything I say is a lie-I say this"...

And we always think that fallacies are wrong and hould not be used at all in our development of knowledge, but it is preciselly a fallacy the basis of all of human knwoledge, of all of science: INDUCTION. "I see that dogs, cats and tigers are mammals and all have four legs, therefore all mammals have four legs" is a fallacy, but not because the conclusion is wrong (which it is), but because the method itself is wrong. If the final postulate was right (for our present knowledge) we would think that it is a correct argumentation, but is not.

[michellemfry]

I guess we should be thankful for mathematics at a time like this. I do know that nature is simple and does not produce fallacious characteristics in organisms. For instance, you would never find a lung system that wasn't allowed to breathe. If nature has learned to live without fallacy, shouldn't we.

[jim barlow]

Misunderstanding is the basis of all ongoing, (considered successful) relationships. The anatomy of misunderstanding is two-fold. It is not like cheating where one dupes another and sooner or later both know exactly what happened.
True misunderstanding is indispensable for social relationships with participants who are different from each other. (I guess this covers 99 %). It works like this:
Individual A expects x from Individual B while produces z thinking that is what B wants and that is what A has a supply of. B unfortunately expects y from A (but gets the z) while produces v because that is what’s available for “export”.

So instead of x A gets v and instead of y B gets z.

If this becomes an issue in step the politicians, sociologists, marriage counselors and what have you to explain that z is really x and y is really z or close enough or is tending in that direction if you wait long enough. The opposition of course cries foul.

“If the shoe fits…” and “leave it to the imagination” are some of the slogans of the misunderstanders. The prep “mis” seems to mean something “amiss”. Something of which the opposite is “right”.

I would rather call misunderstanding Multiunderstanding.

Understanding hardly exists at all except in terminal situations. I don’t even understand myself, they tell me. Probably right.

And what do you “stand under” anyway? We are using a worn out language. Try Creole instead. There is linguistic logic for you.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Excellent, Multiunderstanding; I like it.

regards

Originally Posted by jim barlow Misunderstanding is the basis of all ongoing, (considered successful) relationships. The anatomy of misunderstanding is two-fold. It is not like cheating where one dupes another and sooner or later both know exactly what happened. True misunderstanding is indispensable for social relationships with participants who are different from each other. (I guess this covers 99 %). It works like this: Individual A expects x from Individual B while produces z thinking that is what B wants and that is what A has a supply of. B unfortunately expects y from A (but gets the z) while produces v because that is what’s available for “export”. So instead of x A gets v and instead of y B gets z. If this becomes an issue in step the politicians, sociologists, marriage counselors and what have you to explain that z is really x and y is really z or close enough or is tending in that direction if you wait long enough. The opposition of course cries foul. “If the shoe fits…” and “leave it to the imagination” are some of the slogans of the misunderstanders. The prep “mis” seems to mean something “amiss”. Something of which the opposite is “right”. I would rather call misunderstanding Multiunderstanding. Understanding hardly exists at all except in terminal situations. I don’t even understand myself, they tell me. Probably right. And what do you “stand under” anyway? We are using a worn out language. Try Creole instead. There is linguistic logic for you.

[pbecke]

Guille,

Like fallacies, I expect there are a virtually inifinite number of false paradoxes we might contrive and claim to be real, but which are plain vapid oxymorons; but I don't believe there is a shadow of doubt that the ones we see increasingly posited/reported by physicists in the extremities of our cosmos, (mico and macro, if my terminology is amiss) are absolutely real, and fit with the body of confirmed theoretical computations of the scientists; even though they defy our common sense, indeed our comprehension in any shape or form - except as what they seem to be in physics, apparent oxymorons, which actually explain or assist in explaining the conundrums the physicists face.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by michellemfry A fallacy is a misleading or illusory argument. A sophism is a fallacy designed to decieve. A paradox is a tenet or proposition contrary to recieved opinion, Also, an assertion or sentiment seemingly contradictory. A paradox is opposed to common sense. It is only related to reality in that it is opposed to it. It is the sophism that is the most difficult to comrehend. Why would the mind design a fallacy to decieve? Your questions about are they relative, I cannot answer. Maybe someone else can bring you the answer you seek.

May I just say Michelle,that I am impressed by the way you spelt out the meanings here,I thought that for aminute you would have went the"whole Hog" and answered it all!


kind regards michael,

[Guille]

Originally Posted by pbecke Guille, Like fallacies, I expect there are a virtually inifinite number of false paradoxes we might contrive and claim to be real, but which are plain vapid oxymorons; but I don't believe there is a shadow of doubt that the ones we see increasingly posited/reported by physicists in the extremities of our cosmos, (mico and macro, if my terminology is amiss) are absolutely real, and fit with the body of confirmed theoretical computations of the scientists; even though they defy our common sense, indeed our comprehension in any shape or form - except as what they seem to be in physics, apparent oxymorons, which actually explain or assist in explaining the conundrums the physicists face.

But the idea of science is to create a structure of thought which forms a system unified by a method to reduce it all to the minimum laws possible and those are then processed to apply in the practical world according to social needs.

How can such thing happen if to start with the structure of thought doesn't form a system (Which is what happens when there are contradictions) nor is unified by a method (which is what happens when the are unknown variables) nor is reduced to the minimum laws possible (which is what happens when we want to predict more than the necessary) nor are those then processed to be applied in the practical world according to social needs (which is what happens when capitalism invents necesity and when the practical world is no more of necessity)? It can't.

[pbecke]

Guille, maybe there is a theory no-one has yet hit upon, to unify the various forces constituting a unified field theory; maybe there is not.

It seems to me that what you state as a requirement of science is simply what you consider to be desirable. Science can and does exist without meeting your demand for an irreducible minimum key to explain everything.

Whatever TOE may or may not be, what I am sure it cannot be, is something co-terminous with the reductionist, closed physical system that many scientists today as well as many naive non-scientists, who are only aware of Newtonian mechanistic physics, feel they must insist upon as the paradigm of all knowledge; particularly in the US, where atheists seem almost unstable in the hositility of their convictions, or rather the manner in which they presume to impose them. They "insistently insist upon insisting upon" a belief in a wholly materialist view of everything. Reductionist empirical science is therefore God, and they are its high priests.

This despite the hilarious fact that the greatest, most innovative scientific thinkers have generally been, not just theists, but religious "nuts". Galileo (yes, Galileo had wanted to be a priest, but his very powerful father prevented him), Newton, who scorned even mathematics, I believe, though it may have been physics or perhaps more likely both), and Einstein, who most significantly - particularly in view of your social concerns for science - once stated:

"I believe that the horrifying deterioration in the ethical conduct of people today stems from the mechanization and dehumanization of our lives - the disastrous by-product of the scientific and technical mentality. Nostra culpa. Man grows cold faster than the planet he inhabits."

For me, physical light is the interface with the world of the spirit, with the creator/matrix of any cosmos and all possible creations; a world of unfathomable mystery.

I should mention in relation with an earlier post of mine that I posited a paradox, a physical light-spiritual light continuum, but however plausible and eventually even accepted as a genuine paradox it may be, (I place immense store on anecdotal evidence, most notably re the existence and appearance of ghosts, for example) - it is a bit unsettling even to me to posit it other than in a tentative manner, since it takes us into an altogther new and infinite framework of reference, in which mysteries are going to supersede empirically demonstrable facts: an impassable frontier of empirical science. It's a hybrid, so I wouldn't claim it to be more than a putative paradox.