Waterfall painting is a lithograph print that was printed on 1 October 1961 by M.C Escher who was a Dutch artist. This print shows a visible paradox where water from a waterfall base runs downhill along water path, prior to reaching to its top. The artist utilizes propositions that are conflicting in nature to create a paradox that can be seen. The leat of the waterfall has two Penrose triangles structure. These types of triangles are impossible objects that were designed by Lionel Penrose and his son.
According to this painting, M.C Escher violated a number of fallacies. A fallacy is a kind of reasoning error where we have formal and informal fallacies. First of all this printing is all wrong this is because water flows away and this going away actually comes closer. In addition, the water flows downward and after going down the water comes up where it returns to the initial point where it began. This in actual sense is impossible where M.C Escher plays with our vision normal assumptions.
M.C Escher violates three types of fallacies: the argumentum and hominem fallacy, the fallacy of argumentum and ignorantiam and the ambiguity or reification fallacy. At the start, the artist violates Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy since in his painting the argument that comes is of mistaken reasoning type. The second fallacy he violates is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam that in simple terms is making certain arguments from ignorance. In his painting, he assumes that what he is claiming to be true is true because there is no one who has claimed it to be false. Last but not least, reification or ambiguity fallacy is another fallacy that the artist violates. He treats his hypothetical construct as a real event, a concrete, or a physical entity.
In arguing the artist starting point, one will employ deductive methods of analysis because the conclusion claim about waterfall painting that one can make will be conclusively supported by its premises. In this case illogical will rely on logic because the reasoning building blocks or simply the prepositions are true. The reasoning that one can employ in this case is going to lead one in making arguments that supports the conclusions that are made.
Scientific thinking challenge
Reality refers to the state of stuff, as they exist slightly than they might be imagined or they may appear. Therefore, reality includes everything, which will exist, exists, or has existed. Alternatively, the reality concept includes everything that has been and that is, whether or not that thing is comprehensible or observable. On the other hand, relativity is a term that has different meanings. In its simplest terms, it refers to the quality of appearing relative and having importance only in relation to a different thing. In actual sense, relativity does not correspond to reality. The estimation of a theory is based on this standard.
Aristotle formalized the law of identity. This law in condensed form means that an entity by no means can be opposite of what it is. This means that an entity is what it is in accordance with its inherent properties, attributes, structure, and actions. Any attempt for one to undermine or deny this law is contradictory. This means that it fails to follow from valid reasoning and it is actually an impossibility given reality facts. Utilizing and applying this law in psychological processes and complex abstractions realm can be demanding. The logical epistemology that involves non-contradictory concepts identification depends on this law.
The reality laws give us an opportunity to determine what cannot and can be validly claimed as knowledge, truth, and fact. These laws therefore enable one to attain certainty that is crucial for scientific knowledge. At times, the scientific discoveries invalidate past theories and hypotheses. Occasionally our reality interpretations may be blemished on various oversights account, or our conclusions may be timid on the account of the limited available evidence. Rather than recognizing epistemology and logical metaphysics, skepticism leads to having people investigating every postulate that others make in spite of what we know concerning reality. Therefore, relativity fails to correspond to reality.
Penrose, L. S.; Penrose, R. (1999). “Impossible objects: A special type of visual illusion”. British Journal of Psychology 49 (1): 31–33.