Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Errors in logic as a sophism and

paradox
In this paper, I tried to write about logical fallacies about their types
and how they differ from each other. This topic seems to me very
interesting and exciting. Pondering about logical errors is the best way
to examine our logical abilities and one of the most effective ways of
its training. Familiarity with paradoxes (and sophistry), penetration into
their essence, into its hidden issues is not a simple matter. It requires
maximum concentration and inventing a few simple, seemingly
statements.

Is Sophism an intellectual fraud?


We speak about Sophism casually and with obvious conviction.
Indeed, does it worth to stop and think about these, for example,
arguments?
Seating person stood up; the one who stood up, is standing up;
consequently, sitting is standing up
Socrates is a man; person and Socrates are not the same things;
therefore, Socrates - it is somebody other than Socrates
This is your dog; he is the father; hence, he is your father?
So, sophistry is the argument that seems correct, but contain
hidden logical error and makes us to see true the false conclusions.

Sophistry is a special technique of intellectual deception, an


attempt to give the lie for the truth, and thereby misleading. Hence the
"sophist" in a bad sense - a man, ready to help to any, using unfair
techniques to defend their beliefs, regardless of the fact are they
actually true or not. Its purpose - to give a lie for the truth. Resort to
sophisms reprehensible as well as cheating and inspiring for a false
idea.
Sophism is known since antiquity, when they were used to justify
the notorious nonsense, absurd or paradoxical situation, contrary to
the generally accepted ideas. In ancient Greece, sophistry was
considered as an art. Or rather, not the sophistry itself, but the ability
to win the debate, of course using sophistry. This "art" was even taught
in special schools.
So, how do we use sophism? Multiple words of ordinary language,
abbreviations and often based on the fallacy of logical errors in a
sophism.

As an illustration:

The more the better


The more I drink soju, the more my hands are shaking. The more my
hands are shaking, the more I drink soju. The more I spill soju, the less

I drink. Therefore, to drink less, it is necessary to drink more.

The mathematical sophistry


We have a numerical identity: 4: 4 = 5: 5; took away from every
part of the common factor: 4 (1: 1) = 5 (1: 1).

Numbers in

parentheses are equal, then 4 = 5, and hence it follows that


2 * 2 = 5.
5=1
5 = 1. Subtract from each of the 3, we find that
2 = -2.Take the square of both sides, you get
4 = 4, So it follows that 5 = 1

Another one
3 and 4 are two different numbers, 3 and 4 - 7 is thus 7 - two
different forms. This looks correct and convincing arguments confuse
or identified different, not identical things: a simple listing of numbers
(the first part of the argument), and the mathematical operation of
addition (second part of the argument); between first and second
cannot equate, violation of the law of identity.
Form ancient times sophists were ideologically opposed by famous
Greek philosopher Socrates, who claimed that there is an objective
truth, but not knowing how exactly it is: whereby meaning that
everybody has a duty to seek for the truth common to everyone.
The discussion between the sophists and Socrates of the existence
of objective truth started about in V century B.C. Since then this
argument is still debated. Among our contemporaries we can meet a
lot of people who claim that there is nothing objective in the public

interest, and everything is equally verifiable and refutable, that


everything is relative and subjective. "How many people, so many
opinions" - familiar to us all expression that is undeniable point of view
of the ancient Sophists. However, in the current era, there are people
who follow Socrates believe, although the world and people are
complex and diverse, yet something objective and universally true for
everybody exists, just as there is a sun in the sky - one for all. They
argue that if someone does not see the objective truth, it does not
mean that it does not exist, just as if someone closes his eyes and
turns away from the sun, he does not thereby abolish its existence in
the sky.

Paradoxes
The paradox represents a situation without solution, a kind of
mental dead end, "a stumbling block" of the logic: throughout its
history many different ways to overcome and resolve paradoxes were
proposed, but none of them is not comprehensive, definitive and
universally recognized.
At first glance paradox seem very similar to the sophistry, as it
leads us to contradictory arguments. However, the main difference
between them is that sophism is a lie, looking like a truth, but the
paradox is the truth in the dress of the lies. This, of course, a figurative
comparison, but it is quite accurately captures the essence of the
problem. In fact, the connection of sophistry and paradoxes is more
subtle and complex. Paradox can be a conclusion of sophistry. The

paradoxical conclusion make us to find the source of the paradox and


forces to get out of the circle, the circle of our fallacious discussions.
During the Middle Ages the common phrase also known as a
paradox of Liar:
-The words said by Plato are false, says Socrates.
-Socrates tells the truth, says Plato.
So the question is, which one of them says the truth and who is
lying?
Here is the modern paraphrase of this paradox. Assume that on the
front side of the card only written the words: "On the other side of this
card must be written a true statement." It is clear that these words are
meaningful statement. Turning the card, we must either see the
promised statement or not. If it is written on the back, then it is either
true or not. However, on the back are the words: "On the other side of
this card is written false statement" - and nothing more. Assume that
the statement is true on the front side. Then the statement on the
reverse to be true, and therefore, on the face of the statement to be
false. But if the statement on the front side is false, then the statement
on the reverse must also be false, and therefore, on the face the
statement must be true. The result - a paradox.
The paradox of "Liar" made a huge impression on the Greeks. And
it's easy to understand why. The question at first glance seems very
simple: if he's lying, who says only that he was lying? But the answer is
"yes" leads to the answer "no" and vice versa. And thinking did not
clarify the situation. Its simplicity opens up vague and immeasurable

depths of humans thoughts.


With the help of sophistry can achieve comic effect. Many
anecdotes are based on it, as they are known since our early childhood
like games, tasks and puzzles and magic. Magician doing one thing,
and the audience think that he is doing absolutely different else.
Paradoxes point to some profound problems of the logical theory
shed light on something not yet fully known and understood, outline
new horizons in the development of logic. A thorough explanation and
the final resolution of the logical paradoxes remains a matter of the
future.
From above examples of the paradox and sophistry, we clearly felt
the magic power of the word. It is the matter which makes the
paradoxes so complex and yet so appealing. The situation is similar to
other logical devices. They are important because they affect the way
of thinking and most fundamental questions of all logic, and hence the
whole of thinking of humans.