Category talk:Paradoxes

Are illusions paradoxes?
"I reverted your paradox category additions at auditory illusion and optical illusion. Your handle suggests that you have an agenda about paradoxes; I suggest you use the talk pages to say what's up.". This was posted to my talkpage by Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A few random links in support, except for the first one not in order of importance
 * OED entry paradox, meaning no. 3
 * Tritone paradox
 * Roy Sorensen on paradoxes, the man is an authority (an incomplete bibliography). He talks about visual paradoxes somewhere down the line, I have no timecode, regrettably. You might find it entertaining nonetheless.
 * Scirus search "auditory paradox"
 * Scirus search "visual paradox"
 * Scirus search "optical paradox"

As concerns my "handle", I have a few suggestions of my own Can I go back to editing after my break? Paradoctor (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider my username declaring an interest. Also, my first edit to Chinese room, promptly followed by this one. Or simply look at my user page.
 * Ponder this: Does a paradoctor heal paradoxes afflicted by something, or something afflicted by paradoxes? If that's not to your liking, you might want to read the article on pararescue. You could also verify that the OED (unabridged edition) does indeed define a paradoctor as "a doctor who reaches isolated areas by parachute".
 * Returning to WP:COI, a quote from this section might be instructive: "The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles.". Please note that to determine "sound", it is usually a great asset to "know or care anything about" the topic of the article.
 * My name and my contribution history do suggest that I have the WP:SPA nature. I confess. And I quote: "Identifying and interacting with SPAs requires both civility and tact.".
 * If you're serious about protecting Wikipedia from berserk SPAs, try this one on for size, maybe that article can finally be brought back on track.
 * Consider this: If everyone started judging contributors by their usernames rather than their contributions, where would that leave you?
 * Finally, you might want to read this guideline again. I'll go now and avail myself to a nice cuppa DGAF, maybe with a little slice of Desiderata on the side.


 * Yes, please, don't let me interrupt you. But I don't buy the idea that a visual or auditory illusion is conventionally considered to be a paradox.  I looked at your search hits; I see I authored one of the ones about auditory paradox; like most of those, I referenced M.R.Schroeder (1986),"Auditory paradox based on fractal waveform."  So yes, there's one example of a good guy calling an auditory effect a paradox; and someone else called the same effect an illusion.  But that hardly makes your point.  I also don't see "visual paradox" anywhere near "illusion", though those terms to do co-occur in a few dozen papers.  If Roy Sorensen makes the connection, please do show us where.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)