I think it is impossible to write a syllogism or sorite that soundly proves paradox is a non-fallacious concept.

I've tried. But I haven't been successful, so I don't have evidence to back up something I haven't found to exist.

Can anyone here prove it's possible with a simple syllogism or sorite?

syllogism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

sorite: http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/S0570500.html

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
honestrosewater
Gold Member
Mr. Therefore said:
I think it is impossible to write a syllogism or sorite that soundly proves paradox is a non-fallacious concept.
I don't understand the question. Do you want to prove "All paradoxes are non-fallacious concepts"? If not, what kind of paradox are you talking about? Do you mean an antimony? Do you want to prove something about paradoxes in general (of any type in any system) or about paradoxes in a certain system or a certain type of paradoxes? And so on. If you could explain what precisely you want to prove, I think I will be interested.
Edit: Oh, yeah- "concept" would need some explaining also. For instance, you could explain "concept" using some already well-defined terms like "sentence", "statement", "argument", etc.
Edit: If that's confusing, sorry. I'm asking: "What is a paradox?" and "What is a concept?"
Also, "I think it is impossible to write a syllogism or sorite that soundly proves..." sounds to me like, "There exists no x such that..." where x would be a sound syllogism or a sound sorite. Those would be two different proofs. You could attempt to prove them (after you define paradox and concept) by showing that assuming "There exists some x such that..." leads to a contradiction. In syllogistic logic, I think this would be the same as defining some class and showing that assuming the class is non-empty leads to a contradiction. Some immediate inferences rely on existential import (the assumption some class is non-empty).

Last edited:
I want to try to keep this simple. I think it will be much more fun to analyze arguments. Forget I said "concept."

But of course we need a definition for paradox, this will gives some basis:

Is it possible for anyone here to make a sound syllogism or sorite of out of this "paradox idea"?

Last edited by a moderator:
I'm still having problems understanding you. What is it that you wish to do?

Is it possible for anyone here to make a sound syllogism or sorite of out of this "paradox idea"?
I guess you here mean, can anyone perform a sound deduction of a contradiction? If there were, the complete logical system would fail since you may then deduct any statement.
For example, let's assume that these premises are correct:
||a
||-a
||---
||a^-a
Since the premises are true, we can do:
||-b
||---
||a^-a
|b

Mr. Therefore said:
I think it is impossible to write a syllogism or sorite that soundly proves paradox is a non-fallacious concept.

I've tried. But I haven't been successful, so I don't have evidence to back up something I haven't found to exist.

Can anyone here prove it's possible with a simple syllogism or sorite?

syllogism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

sorite: http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/S0570500.html

There are no PARADOXES, only 'PARAFUSES'! and 'PARACEPTS'!

'PARAFUSES' = Vagueness, Misunderstandings and Confusions

'PARACEPTS' = Visual or Perceptual Limitations

PARAFUSES: These are logically and quantitatively resolvable, given the right type or kind of Logic, such as TL (Transitional Logic), the type that I am currently advocating in my entire philosophy and calling for it to be developed and given a time table for its test on the native speakers of NL (Natural Language).

PARACEPTS: As I have consistently argued everywhere on this PF, the problem involving paracepts can only be resolved:

a) If the native speakers of NL are themselves visually improvable, let alone perfectable, via 'Structural re-engineering' of some sort.

b) We recgonise this as a hard fact of life that must be confronted head on.

c) And We actually possess or devise the scientific means to do so.

So, the project of eliminating paracepts (visual limitations) that are inherent in the perceivers is purely an engineering excercise of an epic or marathon scale.

Last edited: