On Paradoxes (1990-1999)

"Scaling invariance results from the fact that homogeneous power laws lack natural scales; they do not harbor a characteristic unit (such as a unit length, a unit time, or a unit mass). Such laws are therefore also said to be scale-free or, somewhat paradoxically, 'true on all scales'. Of course, this is strictly true only for our mathematical models. A real spring will not expand linearly on all scales; it will eventually break, at some characteristic dilation length. And even Newton's law of gravitation, once properly quantized, will no doubt sprout a characteristic length." (Manfred Schroeder, "Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws Minutes from an Infinite Paradise", 1990)

"There is a seeming paradox: the more the indeterminism, the more the control. This is obvious in the physical sciences. Quantum physics takes for granted that nature is at bottom irreducibly stochastic. Precisely that discovery has immeasurably enhanced our ability to interfere with and alter the course of nature." (Ian Hacking, "The Taming of Chance", 1990)

"It would seem that there may be a possible synthesis that can de-bifurcate bifurcation theory and give a semblance of order to the House of Discontinuity. Reasonable continuity and stability can exist for many processes and structures at certain scales of perception and analysis while at other scales quantum chaotic discontinuity reigns. It may be God or it may be the Law of Large Numbers which accounts for this seemingly paradoxical coexistence." (J Barkley Rosser Jr., "From Catastrophe to Chaos: A General Theory of Economic Discontinuities", 1991)

"Probability is too important to be left to the experts. […] The experts, by their very expert training and practice, often miss the obvious and distort reality seriously. [...] The desire of the experts to publish and gain credit in the eyes of their peers has distorted the development of probability theory from the needs of the average user. The comparatively late rise of the theory of probability shows how hard it is to grasp, and the many paradoxes show clearly that we, as humans, lack a well-grounded intuition in the matter. Neither the intuition of the man in the street, nor the sophisticated results of the experts provides a safe basis for important actions in the world we live in." (Richard W Hamming, "The Art of Probability for Scientists and Engineers", 1991)

"Quantum mechanics, like other physical theories, consists of a mathematical part, and an operational part that tells you how a certain piece of physical reality is described by the mathematics. Both the mathematical and the operational aspects of quantum mechanics are straightforward and involve no logical paradoxes. Furthermore, the agreement between theory and experiment is as good as one can hope for. Nevertheless, the new mechanics has given rise to many controversies, which involve its probabilistic aspect, the relation of its operational concepts with those of classical mechanics […]" (David Ruelle, "Chance and Chaos", 1991)

"This remarkable state of affairs [overuse of significance testing] is analogous to engineers’ teaching (and believing) that light consists only of waves while ignoring its particle characteristics - and losing in the process, of course, any motivation to pursue the most interesting puzzles and paradoxes in the field." (Geoffrey R Loftus, "On the tyranny of hypothesis testing in the social sciences", Contemporary Psychology 36, 1991)

"Chaos demonstrates that deterministic causes can have random effects […] There's a similar surprise regarding symmetry: symmetric causes can have asymmetric effects. […] This paradox, that symmetry can get lost between cause and effect, is called symmetry-breaking. […] From the smallest scales to the largest, many of nature's patterns are a result of broken symmetry; […]" (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"Even distinguished philosophers of science [...] recognize the failure of philosophy to help understand the nature of science. They have not discovered a scientific method that provides a formula or prescriptions for how to make discoveries. But many famous scientists have given advice: try many things; do what makes your heart leap; think big; dare to explore where there is no light; challenge expectation; cherchez le paradox; be sloppy so that something unexpected happens, but not so sloppy that you can’t tell what happened; turn it on its head; never try to solve a problem until you can guess the answer; precision encourages the imagination; seek simplicity; seek beauty. [...] One could do no better than to try them all." (Lewis Wolpert, "The Unnatural Nature of Science", 1992)

"Perhaps the greatest strength of graph theory is the abundance of natural and beautiful problems waiting to be solved. […] Paradoxically, much of what is wrong with graph theory is due to this richness of problems. It is all too easy to find new problems based on no theory whatsoever, and to solve the first few cases by straightforward methods. Unfortunately, in some instances the problems are unlikely to lead anywhere […]" (Béla Bollobás, "The Future of Graph Theory", [in "Quo Vadis, Graph Theory?"] 1993)

"Arm chair reflections on the concept of causation [are] not going to yield new insights. The grandfather paradox is simply a way of pointing to the fact that if the usual laws of physics are supposed to hold true in a chronology violating spacetime, then consistency constraints emerge. [To understand these constraints] involves solving problems in physics, not armchair philosophical reflections." (John Earman,"Recent Work on Time Travel", 1995)

"The real numbers are one of the most audacious idealizations made by the human mind, but they were used happily for centuries before anybody worried about the logic behind them. Paradoxically, people worried a great deal about the next enlargement of the number system, even though it was entirely harmless. That was the introduction of square roots for negative numbers, and it led to the 'imaginary' and 'complex' numbers. A professional mathematician should never leave home without them […]" (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"Not only is it easy to lie with maps, it's essential. To portray meaningful relationships for a complex, three-dimensional world on a flat sheet of paper or a video screen, a map must distort reality. As a scale model, the map must use symbols that almost always are proportionally much bigger or thicker than the features they represent. To avoid hiding critical information in a fog of detail, the map must offer a selective, incomplete view of reality. There's no escape from the cartographic paradox: to present a useful and truthful picture, an accurate map must tell white lies." (Mark S Monmonier, "How to Lie with Maps" 2nd Ed., 1996)