Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Paradoxes
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:19:17 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <8e030e55b2e485b9da37c2143a571915@www.novabbs.com>
References: <vlt8mu$h46e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="50003"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 2776
Lines: 25

On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 8:04:55 +0000, MarkE wrote:

> Potential paradoxes are of particular interest because if unresolved,
> they may indicate not just difficultly but impossibility.
>
> Benner's framing remark is noteworthy: "Discussed here is an alternative
> approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on
> 'paradoxes', pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and
> observation, that (taken together) suggest that the 'origins problem'
> cannot be solved."

 Seems to me that framing things as paradoxes is a transparently
deceptive sophistry.

It displaces the actual argument's details to a categorical that
pretends
to be a fundamental problem. Thus we get chicken and egg paradoxes.
Can't
get one without the other --- see it's a paradox. Or you get sophistry
like
zeno's paradox, or the liar's paradox. They are games on sets up by
language
that superficially sounds fair and reasonable but ultimately embed a
hidden
absurdity in their premises.