Variation of the Liar's Paradox

[rmberwin]

A variation of the Liar's Paradox occurred to me: "Statistics are wrong 90% of the time". This statement seems to refute itself, but does so in a less straightforward way. I would appreciate any insights! And what about, "Statistics are wrong 50% of the time"? (Even odds.)

 

[PeroK]

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.)

This makes utterly no sense to me.

 

[FactChecker]

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]

Anything less than a certainty of 100% removes the paradox. It leaves the possibility that the statement is true.

But if the statement is true, then it is probably (90%) false. That is the paradox.

 

[FactChecker]

But if the statement is true, then it is probably (90%) false. That is the paradox.

"Probably" is not the same as definitely. That is why it is not a paradox.
I could say that I am 26,823 days old and probably be wrong. But maybe not.

 

[Hill]

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.