Template talk:Paradoxes

Division of types of paradoxes?

Looking at this template, it's not clear that the divisions (Philosophical, Logical, Economic, Decision Theory) really make any sense? In fact, I'm pretty sure all four of those disciplines overlap with each other quite a bit. Maybe there's some better divisions we can come up with? a lot of them seem to be some form of the Liar paradox, which could be grouped together, but it's also not clear to me why those aren't all on one page to begin with. - car chasm (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all paradoxes are logical paradoxes. And I think that's right, "self referential" paradoxes would be one class of paradox (most famously exemplified by the Liar, but also Russell or Goedel). While the Sorites, for example, isn't self referential. It's some problem of vagueness. I'm not sure what kind of paradox the rule following paradox or the paradox of fiction is. There is the distinction between formal logic and philosophical logic, to which I assume they were referencing. Cake (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that this template is completely incomplete, just check the list.

Surely all paradoxes are logical paradoxes The division into types of paradoxes is about the subject field they arise in. A logical paradox is one that arises with the field of logic. An economic paradox is about concepts and theories within economy. A biological paradox like the paradox of the plankton occurs with biology. And so on.

The groupings are there to help navigation, not to make restrictive statements about their nature. Some paradoxes fit into more than category. For example, all of the self-referential paradoxes do. The Russell paradox is both self-referential and about set theory. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]