Again, The Liar’s Paradox Isn’t A Paradox

The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants.

Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested.

The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars.

Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar.

For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself.

And for the same reason.