Bar-Hillel–Carnap paradox
E1253542
UNEXPLORED
The Bar-Hillel–Carnap paradox is a result in the philosophy of information theory showing that, under certain formal measures, logically true statements can be assigned maximal information content, leading to a counterintuitive tension between logical truth and informational value.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Bar-Hillel–Carnap paradox canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T17162401 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Bar-Hillel–Carnap paradox Context triple: [Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, notableIdea, Bar-Hillel–Carnap paradox]
-
A.
Hempel's paradox
Hempel's paradox is a famous problem in the philosophy of science that challenges our intuitions about confirmation by showing how evidence seemingly unrelated to a hypothesis can still count as confirming it.
-
B.
“Putnam’s Paradox”
“Putnam’s Paradox” is a philosophical argument by Hilary Putnam that challenges metaphysical realism by showing how model-theoretic considerations lead to radical indeterminacy about reference and truth.
-
C.
Carnap's continuum of inductive methods
Carnap's continuum of inductive methods is a family of formal Bayesian-style confirmation functions that systematically vary how evidence updates degrees of belief in logical probability theory.
-
D.
Paradoxes of plurality
Paradoxes of plurality are a set of arguments by Zeno of Elea that challenge the coherence of the concepts of plurality and divisibility in space and time.
-
E.
Goodman’s paradox
Goodman’s paradox is a philosophical problem in the theory of induction that challenges how we justify projecting certain predicates (like “green”) into the future rather than equally compatible but gerrymandered ones (like “grue”).
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Bar-Hillel–Carnap paradox Target entity description: The Bar-Hillel–Carnap paradox is a result in the philosophy of information theory showing that, under certain formal measures, logically true statements can be assigned maximal information content, leading to a counterintuitive tension between logical truth and informational value.
-
A.
Hempel's paradox
Hempel's paradox is a famous problem in the philosophy of science that challenges our intuitions about confirmation by showing how evidence seemingly unrelated to a hypothesis can still count as confirming it.
-
B.
“Putnam’s Paradox”
“Putnam’s Paradox” is a philosophical argument by Hilary Putnam that challenges metaphysical realism by showing how model-theoretic considerations lead to radical indeterminacy about reference and truth.
-
C.
Carnap's continuum of inductive methods
Carnap's continuum of inductive methods is a family of formal Bayesian-style confirmation functions that systematically vary how evidence updates degrees of belief in logical probability theory.
-
D.
Paradoxes of plurality
Paradoxes of plurality are a set of arguments by Zeno of Elea that challenge the coherence of the concepts of plurality and divisibility in space and time.
-
E.
Goodman’s paradox
Goodman’s paradox is a philosophical problem in the theory of induction that challenges how we justify projecting certain predicates (like “green”) into the future rather than equally compatible but gerrymandered ones (like “grue”).
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.