Over the last several centuries scholastic philosophers have steadily whittled away at the metaphysical and logical underpinnings of their craft until today many are resigned to using extremely questionable historical arguments and ones that merely negate those of alternative philosophies rather than supporting their own positions. It is my intention to buck this long-standing trend and address the philosophical foundations of the sciences directly using empirical evidence and irreducible holistic arguments spanning several disciplines. The pragmatic philosophy of paradox I present here is a quasi-metaphysical extrapolation of Philosophical Taoism, a form of mysticism that is over two thousand years old and formed the basis of the original Chinese sciences in addition to a plethora of religions. For many contemporary academics and mystics alike the idea of reconciling their disparate schools of thought into a modern branch of the formal academic philosophies and sciences is anathema. The entire history of the western sciences has been a struggle to distance and distinguish themselves from the more mystical theologies, philosophies, and sciences that preceded them. Likewise, many mystics prefer to think of their practice as an intensely personal spiritual endeavor rather than an impersonal and formulaic academic one. Nonetheless, reconciliation to a significant extent is inevitable in my opinion and a distinctive branch of the formal pragmatic philosophies is about to assume a prominent position in the scholarly world and is already gaining momentum in a renewed interest among academia in the ancient science of paradox. As a direct result of the more mystically oriented philosophies being understandably abhorrent to many scholars, academia as a whole has itself become as conservative, stylized, and rigid in its affect and posture as the very same religions and mysticisms it has struggled to distance itself from. Consequently, reconciling the scholarly world with a philosophy of paradox requires a great deal of patience and willingness to meet them on their own terms. Towards this end Taoism is exceptional because of it’s tremendous flexibility and proclivity to be much more descriptive than prescriptive, dogmatic, dramatic, or otherwise overtly stylistic in regard to the subject. Besides their uses in mystical practices, Taoist writings can also be thought of as the Chinese civilization’s more concise, lucid, and comprehensive reformulation of prehistoric Shamanistic knowledge and wisdom concerning paradox. As such they present an enormous opportunity for the entire civilized world to reclaim and expand upon much of what has been lost to antiquity over the eons. There exist countless philosophies, theologies, and other schools of thought on the subject of paradox, which can also trace their origins to antiquity. Each no doubt presents its own distinctive advantages, but my intention here is to reduce to a bare minimum the intrinsically broad scope of these holistic arguments as well as avoid the more mystical connotations of the subject in the interest of promoting a science of paradox. By applying a rudimentary demystified, rational, and quasi-metaphysical approach to paradox I hope to meet academia on its own terms using a posteriori synthetic arguments. Other closely related scientific philosophies have been developed over the last century or so, but most if not all skirt the central issue of paradox rather than addressing it directly. What is required is a new paradigm that encompasses all of these efforts and brings them together as an orderly and productive community. Whether science is currently ready or willing to address the issue is irrelevant, change is inevitable. Progress and the increasing lack of viable alternatives are thrusting the scientific community inexorably in this direction. A philosophy of paradox is along the lines of Existentialism and other schools of thought sometimes referred to as Absurdism. Unlike Existentialism, however, Taoism is not rife with angst. Nor does it assume any ethical positions or limit itself as Contextualism does. At its best, it is merely descriptive of the paradox of existence we all share. Whether we call this paradox an absurdity or something altogether different is, perhaps, merely a question of personal and cultural bias. In the final analysis the paradox of existence may well be ineffable.