Paradox An argument where the premises, if true, infer a conclusion that is a contradiction

The Paradox of Buridan's Ass

Picture this . . . A donkey is placed between A delicious pile of golden hay A delectable pail of crystal clear water

Both items are the exact same distance away from the donkey The donkey is equally hungry and thirsty So, what happens to the donkey? HE DIES!!! Because the donkey has no clear choice, he cannot make a decision, and therefore does not make a decision.

The Paradox of Morton's Fork

Morton's Fork John Morton was the Archbishop of Canterbury in the late 15th Century and was responsible for collecting taxes. This was his taxation philosophy: Someone who lives extravagantly is obviously rich, and can therefore afford taxes. Someone who lives modestly must be saving money, and can therefore afford to pay taxes. Therefore, everyone can afford to pay taxes.

The Paradox of Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager During the 17th century, Blaise Pascal proposed this argument in favor of believing in God: If you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). If you wrongly believe in God, you lose nothing (death is the absolute end)

Zeno's Paradoxes of Time and Motion

Achilles and the Tortoise Achilles challenges a tortoise to a race and gives the tortoise a head start. Each runner runs at a constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), so after some finite time, Achilles will have run to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance to a second point. It will then take Achilles some further time to run the distance to the second point, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise

Zeno's Arrow In order for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. Picture an arrow being shot through the air, and we are taking snapshots of it as it flies through the air. In any one of our snapshots that preserves an instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there It cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

Mind blown yet? Take a deep breath and break these arguments down. Check them for soundness Are they valid? Do they follow the syllogistic formula: A -> B B -> C A -> C Are they true?