The discussion centers on a variation of the Liar's Paradox articulated as "Statistics are wrong 90% of the time." Participants analyze the self-referential nature of this statement, concluding that if it is true, it contradicts itself by implying it is likely false. The consensus is that the paradox dissolves when the certainty of truth is less than 100%, allowing for the possibility of the statement being true. The dialogue also touches on the implications of probability in defining paradoxes.
PREREQUISITESPhilosophers, logicians, students of mathematics, and anyone interested in the complexities of truth and paradoxes in reasoning.
This makes utterly no sense to me.rmberwin said:A variation of the Liar's Paradox occurred to me: "Statistics are wrong 90% of the time". This statement seems to refutes itself, but does so in a less straightforward way. I would appreciate any insights! And what about the statement, "Statistics are wrong 50% of the time"? (Even odds.)
Anything less than a certainty of 100% removes the paradox. It leaves the possibility that the statement is true.rmberwin said:A variation of the Liar's Paradox occurred to me: "Statistics are wrong 90% of the time". This statement seems to refutes itself, but does so in a less straightforward way. I would appreciate any insights! And what about the statement, "Statistics are wrong 50% of the time"? (Even odds.)
But if the statement is true, then it is probably (90%) false. That is the paradox.FactChecker said:Anything less than a certainty of 100% removes the paradox. It leaves the possibility that the statement is true.
"Probably" is not the same as definitely. That is why it is not a paradox.rmberwin said:But if the statement is true, then it is probably (90%) false. That is the paradox.
If the statement is true, then it is one of the 10% of true statements. No paradox.rmberwin said:But if the statement is true, then it is probably (90%) false. That is the paradox.