Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The following is an example of a false dilemma with the simple constructive form: (1) "If you tell the truth, you force your friend into a social tragedy; and therefore, are an immoral person". (2) "If you lie, you are an immoral person (since it is immoral to lie)".
Conundrum may refer to: A riddle , whose answer is or involves a pun or unexpected twist, in particular Riddle joke , a riddle that constitutes a set-up to the humorous punch line of a joke
The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever is a logic puzzle so called by American philosopher and logician George Boolos and published in The Harvard Review of Philosophy in 1996. [1] [2] Boolos' article includes multiple ways of solving the problem.
Shows that a sentence can be paradoxical even if it is not self-referring and does not use demonstratives or indexicals. Yablo's paradox: An ordered infinite sequence of sentences, each of which says that all following sentences are false. While constructed to avoid self-reference, there is no consensus whether it relies on self-reference or not.
Logical analyses focus on "truth values", for example by identifying it as paradox of self-reference. Epistemological studies of the paradox instead focus on issues relating to knowledge; [2] for example, one interpretation reduces it to Moore's paradox. [3] Some regard it as a "significant problem" for philosophy. [4]
Vallicella argues that the future tense sentence cannot generate the liar paradox because this sentence cannot be ever treated as a falsity. He explains his point with this example: "Suppose I predict that tomorrow morning, at 6 AM, my blood pressure will be 125/75, but my prediction turns out false: my blood pressure the next morning is 135/85.
Examples include contradictory contracts where one clause directly negates another clause, or conflicts between fundamental (e.g. constitutional) legal norms. Leibniz's 1666 doctoral dissertation De casibus perplexis (Perplexing Cases) is an early study of contradictory legal conditions. [ 18 ]
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; [1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. [2]