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.
The Liar's Paradox is a self-referential paradox that arises when a statement refers to itself in a way that creates a contradiction. The classic example is the statement "This sentence is false." If the sentence is true, then it must be false as it claims; however, if it is false, then it must be true, leading to a paradox.
The Variation of the Liar's Paradox involves modifications or extensions of the original paradox to explore different logical or linguistic nuances. This can include statements that reference other statements, more complex self-referential structures, or scenarios involving multiple interacting paradoxical statements.
There is no universally accepted resolution to the Liar's Paradox. Some approaches include rejecting the principle of bivalence (the idea that every statement is either true or false), adopting a paraconsistent logic that tolerates contradictions, or using hierarchical models to separate levels of self-reference.
Examples of variations include the "Strengthened Liar" (e.g., "This sentence is not true"), the "Epimenides Paradox" (a Cretan saying "All Cretans are liars"), and the "Yablo's Paradox," which involves an infinite sequence of statements where each statement says that all following statements are false.
The Liar's Paradox is significant because it challenges foundational concepts in logic, semantics, and the philosophy of language. It prompts discussions about the nature of truth, self-reference, and the limits of formal systems, influencing areas such as mathematical logic, theories of truth, and the development of non-classical logics.