Talk:Catch-22 (logic)

Other uses from the novel

These examples are really unclear:
Besides referring to an unsolvable logical dilemma, Catch-22 is invoked to explain or justify the military bureaucracy.
What is that supposed to mean? First we define Catch-22 as an unsolvable logical dilemma, but now we use it for something completely unrelated?

Not "we" use it for something completely unrelated, the author of the novel did. However, only one of the meanings used by the author caught on in everyday English. I think it is quite useful to point out that not everything called a catch-22 in the Book is a catch-22 in its current meaning. --Ligneus (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

For example, in the first chapter it requires Yossarian to sign his name to letters that he censors while he is confined to a hospital bed.
So what? And what is the connection between censoring and being confined to a hospital bed?

One clause mentioned in chapter 10 closes a loophole in promotions, which one private had been exploiting to reattain the attractive rank of Private First Class after any promotion. Through courts-martial for going AWOL, he would be busted in rank back to PFC, but Catch-22 limited the number of times he could do this before being sent to the stockade.
Pardon? This guy is a Private, gets promoted (presumably to Private First Class) then goes AWOL (on purpose?) to get busted "back" to PFC? How do you get "busted" from PFC to PFC? Or was he a PFC and got promoted from there? Then why would he want to reattain the rank of PFC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.170.196.8 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

too complicated

This is a well known saying, so lay-persons should get the point pretty early, and not become bombarded with logic lingo. Changing the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.44.214 (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we should not change the saying to make it suitable for "lay-persons". Prioritize conserving it's original meaning, instead of making it the most popular phrase to describe any dilemma where there is only one outcome. Thanks. --188.113.67.7 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle."

Do we really need to go round that loop over and over? I think it's clear from the first two sentences.

logic fix

I fixed the formal logic in the "original use" section. For C to "require" A and B is for C to logically entail A and B, not for A and B to entail C. Original writer was presumably confused because A and B, if they could happen, would happen earlier in time than C.

Also, I'll note that "if A then not B" and "if B then not A" are not both necessary in the definition; each entails the other. (They are contrapositives.) However, as including both feels right in the explication of the various examples of Catch-22, I haven't messed with it.

J. Goard 04:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the statement "For C to 'require' A and B is for C to logically entail A and B, not for A and B to entail C." is relevant. I think that building a truth-table will clarify relations between propositions A, B, and C. I've tried it, but got stuck in analyzing the givens of the problem, which come, IMHO, from lack of rigor in choosing the atomic propositions A, B and C.

So, I want to share my own analysis of the problem, though I haven't read the book and judge only from what has been written up to date in this section.

Firstly, let's formulate simple propositions from the data and label them:
S.1) let "bombardier submits an insanity diagnosis from his squadron's flight surgeon" be I
S.2) let "bombardier is excused from combat flight duty" be E
S.3) let "bombardier is sane" be S (then "bombardier is insane" is ~S)
S.4) let "bombardier requests a permission not to fly combat missions" be R

Now we can elaborate on complex propositions:
C.1) I <-> E; that is "if I then E" and "if E then I"; here we make an assumption that there is no other way to be excused from flight duty, than I (even death is not enough)
C.2) I <-> ~S; an obvious one: if bombardier submits the diagnosis, then his surgeon considers him insane and vice versa
C.3) I <-> R; this proposition follows from common sense, not the data
C.4) (R & ~S) -> S

and summing it up:
let I be true
according to C.2) ~S is true
according to C.3) R is true
and, from C.4) we get S to be true and here we arrive at contradiction: both S and ~S cannot be true
if so, then one of our propositions is false or our assumption we made at start (i.e. I) is false

any suggestions? Antalas (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Catch 22 is that if S (you're sane, the default), then F (you have to fly).

If not S (you're not sane), then not F (you don't have to fly).

In fact, flying is so dangerous that if F, then not S (you have to be crazy to fly), but this psychiatric proof (not formal logic and not acceptable by USAF).

Officially, the only way to prove not S to be true is for D to be true (an evaluation from the Doctor, which must be true because doctors understand that only a crazy man would want to fly).

If not D (you're not evaluated), then S (by default you're assumed sane)

You can't get D without A (asking for it), but A automatically proves S (you're sane enough to not want to fly by USAF guidlines, so you're sane).

Therefore if A and D, then S, therefore F.

The only way for D and not S to be true (which is the only official way for not F) is if not A, but A is required for D so that'll never happen.

So:

S -> F

~S -> ~F

F -> ~S (known to be true, but not acceptable as proof by USAF)

D -> ~S (acceptable as proof by USAF)

~D -> S

A and D -> S

~A -> ~D

Therefore:

A -> F

~A -> F (and that's Catch 22)

It's supposed to absurdist, much like red tape often seems. A request not to fly isn't part of the scheme, but rather the fact that the USAF can't let insane people fly their planes. NJGW (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got your point and must say that you made the analysis quite clear and rigorous, if not for one proposition i would have amended. It seems to me that A and D -> S would look better without D.

A -> S reflects that the fact of asking a doctor always yields sanity, no matter what the doctor says. It follows by the rule of Contraposition from implicitly stated proposition ~S -> ~A (every insane person is incapable of asking for doctor's approval). How do you find it? Antalas (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I put A and D -> S because that's what's in the book (the Dr.'s USAF guide states that an airman who asks for an eval is self-aware enough to consider the possibility of insanity, so he is sane enough by USAF standards), but I agree that it's not logically neccessary and covered by ~S -> ~A (which seems to make this more complete). If you feel like it adds to the article, feel free to use all that. NJGW (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

22

but why "22" ?

Because it is named after a book called "Catch-22"

Where did the author get the number 22 for the title of the book?

I heard somewhere because it'd been turned down by publishers 21 times.

Apparently it was meant to be Catch-18 but some other war book used that number so it was changed to 22

Is it important to include the Catch-18 bit in the article, especially in the first paragraph? Why? Brianrein 01:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Brianrein: no. I took it out. The answer to why 22 is answered at the Catch-22 page in depth in case any one still wants to know. NJGW (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

holy crap

this is the most horribly written article I've ever seen on this site. What's up Dr. Strangelove 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples - petrol cars, Automated highway system

The chicken and the egg links to Automated highway system describing exactly the thing that I thought happened with petrol cars and would happen with hydrogen cars. Yet people did buy petrol cars! Why? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 15:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Catch 22 definition

The definition of Catch 22 given in the article of the same name is not entirely correct. In the book, there are in fact no less than a dozen scenarios which are described by the characters in the book as the result of "Catch 22," including the fact that Military Police can do anything they can't be stopped from doing, and the fact that Ex P.F.C. Wintergereen cannot run away from the army again, or else he will be executed (even though its his self appointed duty to do so).

However, the construction and symbolic logical demonstrations are well done.

Nice Guoanxiang1 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Damned if you do

Is this necessary? A star trek rant? It's badly done, and not a very good example... even if we need this section at all, which I don't agree we do.

• I'm all for removing it. Unless you're going to write down ALL the Catch-22's out there (Another rainy-day project) then it's not worth writing one and making it seem like thats the origin of them all. Oh, and it was also used in the Simpsons once (Bart the Genius). - Ghostalker

I disagree. The "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation is closely related to the Catch-22. They belong together on the same article. The Star Trek example is a good one of this situation: do something and die along with everyone you know, or don't do it and watch lots of innocent people die. Also, I suggest you look up rant in a dictionary. You obviously don't know what it means. -- Ritchy 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The article defines a Catch-22 not as any old no-win situation, but specifically in terms of a circular dependency (you need A to get B, but you need B to get A). I think this is the sense in which the expression is typically used, and it does not correspond to the Star Trek example. I kept the link to zugzwang, and deleted the example. 66.30.14.1 09:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the article again. It says the Catch-22 has evolved to mean a no-win situation with a circular dependancy, but originally it was a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't kind of deal. The original use of the term was exactly in that scenario: you have to be insane to be excused from flying a missing, but requesting to be excused from flying for insanity is proof that you're sane and thus forces you to fly. The damned-if-you-do... is very relevant in this article. -- Ritchy 17:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. It used to be a circular dependency, but now it has evolved to be a no-win situation. The original Catch-22 relied on the fact that you must be insane and ask to be excused, but to ask to be excused, you must be sane. Therefore, in order to be excused, you must have two mutually exclusive mindsets: being insane enough to request an excusal, while being insane enough to warrant that excusal. Damned-if you do, damned if you don't merely means that you must make a choice with no positive outcomes. In the original Catch-22, there was no choice as to the course of action.--Ballaban 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a catch 22 situation. It may have something to do with it but if there are few examples, they should fit. Otherwise they will just create confusion. The same with the Soccer Example.

None of the examples in the Damned if you do... section - Star Trek, Les Miserables or the Italian football league - is a Catch-22. They are closer to a loose interpretation of Hobson's choice. (See the "modern usage" section of Hobson's choice.) Or Morton's fork. They are just a choice between two negative outcomes. The Star Trek scenario is a peculiarly bad example because it is not even internally consistent. (If the commander chooses to respond to the SOS signal he finds it is a decoy, but if he chooses to ignore it then it is genuine.) Personally, I don't think Wikipedia needs an entry on a self-explanatory expression such as "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" either as part of Catch-22 or as a separate entry. I will delete the whole section tomorrow unless anyone comes up with a good reason to keep it.Le poulet noir 11:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Catch-22 IS related to the DIYD-DIYD and used commonly in many songs, TV shows and among the general public. Regard1ess of Star Trek. Star Trek being used as an example is different than the actual meaning behind the two. DIYD-DIYD should be sighted in this page as an example or a relative statement in regards to a type of impasse. MajinPalgen 18:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Damned if you do..." is a synonym for "no-win situation", which is cited under the "see also" section. Le poulet noir 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Original use

I know its not exactly neccesary but I think we should put the orginal usage just like Heller wrote it, it was much funnier.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Star Trek

Whats with Star Trek exam thing? it just looks silly and out of place. Clever spamming in my regard. --Duey Finster 14:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the Star Trek thing is totally out of place. I vote for it to be pulled.

Mathematical Definition?

The symbolic logic definition of "Catch-22" here seems faulty; The expression written does not mean that A would have to take place before B and vice versa to be true but really only that they occur at the same time, or both have a truth value at the same time. Therefore the formula is satisfiable. Any dissenters?--Zoso Jade 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The definition as written is basically just "~A <-> ~B", and is true if A and B have the same truth value. This needs to be corrected. -- Ritchy 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To describe this in logical terms would require the introduction of temporal logic or something to the point. There is not a lot of gain. Mariano 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It could be possible to do it with "if then" statements. How about: (A <-> B) & (~B <-> A)? It's always false. And we can apply it to the example with A = request an exemption from combat flight duty and B = insane. You can request to be excused from combat flight duty if and only if you're insance, but you're fount not insane if and only if you're ask to be excused from flight duty. Seems to work, unless I made a mistake somewhere? -- Ritchy 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(Please forgive my lack of notation) The definitive Catch-22 seems to be of the form: "IF A AND B THEN C; IF A THEN NOT B; IF B THEN NOT A;" In this example, if you're insane and you request to leave, then you can leave. If you're insane, then you can't request to leave. If you request to leave, then you're not insane. Therefore, you can never leave.

Implies doesn't mean requires and the article suggests it does. I don't know which way it should be, so I can't correct it myself. 83.29.246.76 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it? A is human and alive -> A has a brain. Doesn't A is human and alive REQUIRE A to have a brain? A->B can be said "A is sufficent for B", or "B is necessary for A." 24.59.111.68 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

logical error?

you say that no sane person would want to fly combat missions because of the danger involved: S = sane, F = wants to fly combat missions S → ~F (and therefore, F → ~S) This doesn't imply ~F → S. Wanting to fly is sufficient to prove insanity, but wanting not to fly does not entail you are sane. The example given also conflates sanity and fitness to fly: "...he is in fact sane and therefore is fit to fly." Why would sanity be a sufficient condition for flight fitness?

A solution?

I did imagine one possible solution. If the only way to obtain an insanity certification is to present oneself to the doctor as insane, there is indeed no way out. But, what if another person (a confederate or concerned friend) drags you in and asks the doctor to certify you, while you're protesting the action and proclaiming that you can't wait to get out and fly missions?

Heller would probably have said that the doctor would be obliged to trust the patient's judgement over his friend's. In the book, catch-22 is not just a single rule to catch out shirkers, but a principle that ensures the triumph of bureaucracy over the individual (and, ultimately, common sense).Le poulet noir 17:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, they don't ground anyone unless they personally ask. Otherwise, they'd ground everyone. Also, the only "concerned friend" would probably also be flying or in the Army Air Force, which would make them crazy as well, and we all know you can't trust a crazy person. Artiste-extraordinaire 13:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Beg to fly a dangerous mission and classify yourself as sane. Only an insane person would want to fly, and a sane person would not want to fly. Also because you presume yourself sane, but want to fly, you have to be insane because you are self contradicting." There problem solved. (--207.233.77.190 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Catch-22 is not the paradox!

Well, the thing you call Catch-22 is not the Catch-22 from the book.

The book tells that Catch-22 is every stupid law that only works if you justifie it with Catch-22.

It is four examples of this in the book.

1: The officers who censures the privates letters must sign their name, because of Catch-22.

2: The famous paradox.

3: The soilders who throw out Natlys hookers little sister and her "friends" said that they do it because of Catch-22.

4: Yossarian himself says that Catch-22 does not exist. He thinks it is a law that no one can burn och hate because it does not exist.Sjalvastefan

I changed some lines in this article to be more correct to the original use.

I still think this article is stupid, and I can't change it because of Catch 22... Sjalvastefan

How is it pronounced?

Is the word pronounced "catch twenty-two" or "catch two two"? The only place I recall having heard it spoken is in the song The Shortest Straw by Metallica, and there James pronounces it "catch two two". But he could be wrong.

What is the correct pronunciation? Does anyone know? SpectrumDT 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard "Catch Twenty Two" used, and it's not uncommon for songwriters to take liberties. Static Universe 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In the 1970s I found a cassette copy of Heller reading excerpts from the novel, and he said "Catch Twenty Two", as well as "MInderBInder", and "Clevv-inger." Mark Sublette (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove References tag?

Seems that the source of the term is adequately identified, what else more is needed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Efalk (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

No, you need to cite sources. It's just sloppy to go around claiming things without saying how you arrived at your conclusions or where you got your info. --Kraftlos 07:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Catch 22 is NOT the same as the chicken and egg problem. The two are different. The chicken and egg problem is something like - You need work experience to get a job, but you have to have a job to get work experience. A Catch 22 situation would be something like - You want to get a job at the employment agency which happens to be situated inside an office complex where only employees are allowed. If you show up at the counter, you are disqualified since your mere presence there implies you already have a job, and cannot qualify.

Logic paragraph

People keep inverting the paragraph with the logic proposition. Maybe that section should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehalem (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

removing Star Trek example

It's out of place (disruptive) and plenty of discussion above calls for removal. I'm taking it out. NJGW (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Antreten

The proposed English translation for the Prussian phrase "die Flucht nach vorne antreten" seems to ignore "antreten," which has a martial connotation, as in lines/orders/ranks and files. Google doesn't translate "antreten" at this time, so the editor may have left it out inadvertently. To try to make sense of the phrase, I submit http://www.babylon.com/definition/Antreten/ and http://www.dict.cc/?s=antreten.

The impression (it's only that) I get is that this phrase might be better translated as "Escape to the front line." Perhaps someone who is fluent in German could advise on this, and whether the irony I find in this translation is intended in the original German. Pulsadinura (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Escape to the front line" discribes it pretty well. "Flucht nach vorne antreten" has a ironic subtext, but discribe an actual rational thought: When all conventional options lead to doom in the long run, "escaping to the front" might bear high short term risks, but also is the only option that allows escaping the dilemma completely (and might even include additional rewards). An typical example in my mind is a motorbike that is confronted with oncoming traffic while overtaking on a narrow road. The options are:

• Hard braking and loosing the ability to steer or control of the bike.
• Evading "offroad", likely damaging the motorbike and the driver.
• Overcome the fear and accelerate to be on the "own" lane, before hitting the oncoming traffic. This is "die Flucht nach vorne antreten".

"Die Flucht nach vorne antreten" is a very good describtion of escaping a Catch-22 dilemma. --213.39.155.24 (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Here http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/deutsch-englisch/antreten.html "die Flucht nach vorne antreten" is translated with "to take the bull by the horns". Mind though this (take bull) idiom is known in german too and both idiom are not completely interchangeable. --213.39.155.24 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's wp:or. NJGW (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Prototypical situation

I removed this from the Logic section because (1) discussion of the article belongs on the talk page, and (2) I disagree.

Here is the text I removed: "Since this obviously did not happen (if it did, Yossarian would not have been allowed on combat flight duty to begin with), then it follows that Yossarian would not be considered sane for wanting to leave. Thus this example contradicts itself. Please make a better one!"

I disagree. I don't think it's a good idea to replace the prototypical example of a catch-22 (the Yossarian scenario used in the book Catch-22) with a different example. The author of the book, Joseph Heller, coined the term. If user 67.53.37.218 thinks that Heller's example is not a catch-22, that user must be confusing catch-22 with some other logical principle. JD Lisa (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The example is erroneous.

It implies that there is no solution, when there are several solutions.

According to the assumptions in the example, it would be impossible for Yossarian to enter to begin with, and thus there would be no need for him to leave.

Also, he could just have somebody else suggest a mental evaluation for him, and have the person not say Yossarian requested it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.218 (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell Joseph Heller next time I see him and let him know that his book could have been a lot shorter. But seriously, Catch 22 is a book, and that's were we get the phrase from. You can't argue that the book was written wrong. That's like saying, "The chicken in the chicken/egg problem had other options. It could have abstained, or used protection, or dated an eagle."

Yossarian was written as a bombardier, and decided he wanted out once he was already there (as is normally the case with many sane young men who are seeing war for the first time); and tricking the process and then saying "gotcha" doesn't seem to be allowed by the guidelines setup by Heller (nor in real life by the military). If you read the book though, you'll see how he does solve the problem.

Remember, Heller was in a very similar bomber squad in the same area in WWII. He's writing about his experiences and perceptions. This article is about the phrase which has entered into popular language, where it's meaning comes from and how it is used. You should also know that the book "is frequently cited as one of the great literary works of the Twentieth century," so arguing your point might be a tough sell. NJGW (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely right, of course.

In the first place the point was made that Yossarian's objection to flying continued missions was that the Base Commander had repeatedly raised the required number of missions from the standard twenty. This in effect formed a Catch-22 of its own: each time any airman reached the number, Col. Cathcart increased the requirement again.

No, you're wrong. The fact that each time any pilot (or any other part of the flight crew) got close to the required number of missions, the number was raised, is in no way a Catch-22 situation. It's just a situation in which a douchebag makes it impossible for them to reach the limit. With that reasoning, we encounter Catch-22s in everything we do. Everytime I eat, I should be full, but after a while I get hungry and have to eat again. Not a Catch-22. Every time I sleep, wake up and stay awake for some time, I have to sleep again. No catch-22. Every time I reach my goal, I set a new goal (thus never reaching the ultimate goal to end all goals). Not a Catch-22. Stop calling everything a Catch-22, for crying out loud. --188.113.67.7 (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yossarian was therefore not exhibiting undue cowardice: it's clear to him (and the reader) that he will be required to fly missions until he dies.

Mr. 67.53 (if I may use his first name) also seems to have missed the fact - addressed above on this page - that only the airman concerned may request a psych evaluation. Yossarian asks the doctor if someone else can request one, and is told that Catch-22 rules this angle out. Well, Heller was hardly going to leave it open, was he? --Cdavis999 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pilot Refferal

I might be mistaken, but couldn't a pilot be referred to see a doctor about their insanity by a fellow pilot?

Is that not how many people are diagnosed with insanity in the first place (Unfit).

Unless of course I am missing some obvious part of the whole logic thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiteralStar (talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the book, it is stated that all he who wants to be grounded has to do in order to be so, is to declare himself insane to the doctor. This implies that any pilot who wants to be grounded, must declare his insanity himself. --188.113.67.7 (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Expansion desirable

I believe that the step from 4 to 5 will lose a fair share of readers.

1. $(E\Rightarrow (I\land R))$ (Premise: If a person is excused from flying (E), that must be because they are both insane (I), and request an evaluation (R));
2. $(I\Rightarrow \neg R)$ (Premise: If a person is insane (I), they should not realize that they are, and would have no reason to request an evaluation)
3. $(\neg I\lor \neg R)$ (2, Definition of implication: since an insane person would not request an evaluation, it follows that all people must either not be insane, or not request an evaluation)
4. $(\neg (I\land R))$ (3, De Morgan: since all people must either not be insane, or not request an evaluation, it follows that no person is both insane and request an evaluation)
5. $(\neg E)$ (4, 1, Modus Tollens: since a person may be excused from flying only if they are both insane and request an evaluation, but no person can be both insane and request an evaluation, it follows that no person can be excused from flying)

I believe that exposition should be something like

1. $[E\Rightarrow (I\land R)]$ — blah blah
2. $[\neg E\lor (I\land R)]$ — blah blah
3. $[(I\land R)\lor \neg E]$ — blah blah
4. $(I\Rightarrow \neg R)$ — blah blah
5. $(\neg I\lor \neg R)$ — blah blah
6. $[\neg (I\land R)]$ — blah blah
7. $(\neg E)$ — blah blah

(with, of course, something other than “blah blah”). —SlamDiego_←T 09:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lady and the Tiger

Shouldn't this problem be moved into the "Non-false dilemma situations" section? It would appear that it is not an example of a false dilemma or circular logic but is instead a type of "Lesser of two evils principle" problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.96.210 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are they back

As someone pointed out earlier: "Catch 22 is NOT the same as the chicken and egg problem. The two are different. The chicken and egg problem is something like - You need work experience to get a job, but you have to have a job to get work experience. A Catch 22 situation would be something like - You want to get a job at the employment agency which happens to be situated inside an office complex where only employees are allowed. If you show up at the counter, you are disqualified since your mere presence there implies you already have a job, and cannot qualify."

Why are these examples back in the article? All of these "real life examples" are chicken and egg problem moreso than catch-22's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.210.61 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Catch-22 has been reduced to a name for all types of circular logic dilemmas. It is being used in an irritatingly wrong way in modern usage. Heller is probbably turning in his grave. Can we please fix this, as a source of information, instead of continously facilitating the misinforming of people who did not read the book? --188.113.67.7 (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Under the section "Situations with logical similarities to a Catch-22", the definition of Hobson's choice— "the choice between taking an option and not taking it"—is unsatisfactory, as there is nothing logically problematic about being faced with the option of choosing something on offer or declining it. The article on Hobson's choice rightly and plainly states that it and Catch-22 are logically unrelated. Therefore I have removed mention of it from this section. Now I know that it is part of a list of situations described as having "logical similarities to a Catch-22," not situations that are identical but for their name. But I do not consider Hobson's choice a problem in logic at all (although I realize it can be formulated using the language of logic, like just about every other situation). That is the logic (sorry) behind my decision to remove it.Prohairesius (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV?

"Americans in both the living room and the boardroom are growing more fearful about the economy" doesn't sound very NPOV. --Blacklemon67 (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Small addition to the intro, rephrased a sentence to make it more clear

The original stated: "an individual needs something that can only be acquired by not being in that very situation; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically impossible" I added that it can be acquired by performing an action (which is not stated as it should), and that this action only leads again to the same situation. That is, (but I didn't add this further explanation), the action that would lead out of the situation, that is required by some external authority maybe, is also the one leading him back to where he or she are. 62.1.102.109 (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

statement about linux more contraversxial than it may appear, may show bias in favor of Linux

From the article: "Until vendors develop applications for Linux, Linux's market share on the desktop will stagnate. But until the market share of Linux on the desktop rises, no vendor will develop applications for Linux."

This assumes, for the sake of argument, not only that Linux is useful in the use case of a server or development environcment but that Linux is also, in fact, a viable desktop operating system for ordinary end users based not on any philosophy of "free software" being inherently better but solely on it's quailty as software and ease of use, which is an arguable proposition when compared to other major end user desktop operating systems. This example assumes a priori that the philosophy of Ubuntu - that Linux can realistically be "for regular people" is true. Not everyone would agree with that. I expect Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer would strongly disagree and so would millions of Microsoft and Apple customers who have had, for various reasons, bad experiences with Linux. Linux's lack of success on desktops may, in fact, be Linux's fault, not the market's or vendor's. I suggest removing this example and that we respect the possibility that the lack of success of a product may in fact be a reflection of it's value - we can't assume a priori that Linux's lack of success isn't entirely self-determined because it may very well be.

Showing that it's not, that Linux is in fact a better OS, in this situation, even if it is true that Linux is better, would require a deeply techincal discussion of operating systems which is not germane to this article, which is another reason why this is a bad example. If we must have an example from the world of computers, try QWERTY vs DVORAK, because DVORAK is empirically demonstrable as more efficient than QWERTY.

• QWERTY was originally designed as an intentionally inefficient keyboard arrangement to slow down typists so that mechnical keyboards wouldn't jam, but digital computers aren't supposed to jam no matter what speed human typists could reasonably be expected to achieve. There is no technical reason to continue using the inefficient QWERTY arrangement when more efficient alternatives such as DVORAK are availible. But until computer keyboard manufacturers begin manufacturing keyboards with a more efficent keyboard arrangement, typists won't be retrained to use a more efficient arrangement, and until typists are retrained to use a more efficient arrangement, computer keyboard manufactuers won't manufacture them.

So ... I'll add that to the article I guess, and remove the bad example unless there are objections

Punctuation

Why is the quote punctuated like this?

«You mean there's a catch ? » « Sure there's a catch », Doc Daneeka replied. « Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy. »

Catch-22 was written in English, and we don't usually use guillemets (« and ») in English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Simplified to a common dilemma

In the book, the paradox is presented thus: in order to achieve something (goal), one must do something (action) that automatically prohibits you from achieving the goal.

In my opinion, this very much differs from how the phrase is used today - people tend to refer to any dilemma that ultimately leads to the same outcome, regardless of what option you choose, as a catch-22.

Consider the following:

«You can’t get hired unless you have experience; but you can’t get experience unless you’re hired.»

In a proper Catch-22, the (in my opinion incorrect catch-22 example) would be as following:

«You can't get hired unless you get experience. By getting experience, you can't get the job, because people with experience cant apply.»

Now, my example is a bad one, because a catch-22 doesnt apply very well to such situations. In other words, it's wrongful use of the (phrase that once was a) neologism.

There are several reasons for my opposing the "modern" usage of the phrase. First of all: Common, circular logic existed long before both JH and his book; what made the phrase so popular, was the simple (yet complex) beauty of the catch. It wasn't the fact that Yossarian had to fly no matter what, but that he had to declare himself insane, which he wouldn't do if he actually was insane. What you had to do in order to achieve something was, in fact, what prohibited you in achieving it. The ingenious part isn't that whatever you do, you can't get what you want. Catch-22 would never have been popular if Hellers formulation of the catch had been «If Yossarian wanted to be grounded, he would have to fly. If he wanted to fly, he had to fly».

Wikipedia used to have a better description of the logical paradox some time ago, where it was emphasized that it was a Catch-22 when, and only when, the premise for what was attempted was, in fact, what made it all impossible. It is the catch that is noteworthy; the actual catch in the middle of the reasoning, the contradictory requirements, and not the

I see people referring to any form of circular logic as a catch-22, and it is hardly ever comparable to Hellers version in the book. Input? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.67.7 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Article 22" (French meaning)

Interestingly, an (imaginary) "Article 22" is traditionally invoked by French military, but with a different meaning, when a difficult problem arises:

"Article 22: on se démerde comme on peut" (literally: we get out of the "merde" as we can).

In that case the number 22 "vingt-deux" is for euphony (rhyme with the last word "peut"). Pat22 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Poor example

User:NeilN: What's wrong? Why did you revert? I don't understand your edit summary. Do you mind? SuperSucker (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

SuperSucker, because it was a poor example. There is no Catch-22 as all you need to fly a plane is a learner's permit which doesn't require you to fly a plane. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

First: there's no learner's permit to fly an airplane (at least google agrees.. do you mind cicumstantiating?)

Second: the only example is about two different things (applying and working) which makes it very loose for a catch-22, if not inappropriate SuperSucker (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

SuperSucker, it's called different things in different countries. [1], [2], [3] And the example is poor because it's basically, "in order to do something on your own, you need to undergo some kind of apprenticeship and testing for what you want to do." That's not a Catch-22, that's how various privileges and professions are set up. Driving a car, becoming some form of licensed accountant, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That is NOT a license. Yes of course you can fly an airplane without a license: you could count the exam solo flight, you could even hijack one, you could dream of flying one, you could argue that your uncle let you push a button in the cockpit when you were a kid or sit as a pilot and even roll left and right..

The only example provided is very loose as it compares applying with working, although broadly correct if common sense is applied. My example compares the same thing at least: to fly with a license. SuperSucker (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of this article. "A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules." There's no paradox or contradictory rules here. Pilots who want to get licensed pass tests and fly many hours with licensed pilots by their side. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No paradox? You cannot get a license if you don't fly. And you can't fly if you don't get a license. That's a paradox, not?

The example provided is constructed on the first statement given as a rule, then the second one contradicts it. Why argue that you don't necessarily need a license to fly? I could argue experience is not necessarily needed to apply for a job. What about the objective looseness in the only example provided? It's like stating "Applying for a job = Working". Is that not loose? You can apply for a job and not get hired, that's the point in applying for a job. Also as described in the article: "Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures..", so what's a better example? SuperSucker (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

But, as I've shown, if you are working towards an advanced license of any kind, part of the process is flying. You seem to have a hard time grasping this. There is no paradox here. With the current example, you cannot get work experience without working. With this, you can get a commercial pilot's license (for example) by flying without a commercial pilot's license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

But, without even showing anything, we all know you don't necessarily need experience to be hired. About the rest, I think you have a very hard time being logic. SuperSucker (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If you still want to add your example, I suggest we ask for a third opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Please go on. SuperSucker (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Catch-22 (logic) and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." You're both trying to resolve this improperly, through logic and reasoning, which violates the No Original Research Policy. Whether the two of you think this is or is not an example is irrelevant because now the material has been challenged, under the Verifiability Policy it cannot be restored without the inclusion of a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia which says that it is an example: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article."

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I should have brought that up in the first place. Guess the fact we were discussing an example threw me off. I've added a source for the existing example just in case. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Logic and reasoning are improper ways of solving content issues on Wikipedia? Whatever. . . SuperSucker (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

SuperSucker, we are here to Here to build an encyclopedia. You just joined this community. Maybe it's good advice to focus your efforts for now on improving some articles rather than trying to up-end years worth of policy on Wikipedia from the get-go. Walk before running and all. Maybe with experience the big picture contained in the policies will become clearer. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Uhmm.. yeah.. it's just that I rely on logic and reasoning too often. No good. Thanks. SuperSucker (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A Catch-22 South American example

The Law philosopher Carlos Santiago Nino, in his book: 'Introduction to the analysis of Law', proposed what seems a local case of Catch-22 situation. Some mental therapists were brought to courts, and asked about individual patients, their diagnoses, and therapy applied, the questioned subjects complained that if they responded to the judge's question, they could be blamed for breaking the confidentiality, and if they didn't provide information, the possibility of accusation for refusing to cooperate with justice was impending. Law specialists point that not all rules have the same rank, HLA Hart wrote about this, also punishments are not the same for different offenses. The doubt arouse, in the Spanish law system, about when a forensic, or any other practitioner, is not in the condition of issuing a prognosis for a case, not enough information, or complex situation, the penalty for injuries is in proportion to the time it took for the lesion to heal, the use is writing down: 'Reserved Prognosis', but the judge may think, and act accordingly: 'Who does this doc think he or she is to hide information from me?', in the South American cases, also an international diagnosis label existed in these days: 'Schyzophrenia induced by psychoanalysis', making things more complex. Beware of the dog!. Regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

About loan

"Another example is a situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it (e.g, a bank will never issue someone a loan if they need the money)."

Not right. A bank will never issue someone a loan if the person don't have the means to pay the loan. On a strictly logical approach, the necessity of the money by the person should be irrelevant for the bank. Roque En Rol (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

True. That's why in 2008-09 'something changed at wikipedia'. Wikipedia became so very illogic, by then, through a period of weird global changes (Obama replacing Bush for example, in 2009, as well as the new European Union's reforming policies, and their respective nobel peace prizes between 2009-12, and many others.. Germany beating Brazil at the world cup in 2014?) you can't expect any form of correction at the english wikipedia to such an article.

Editors are now desperate for authority.

They're all mostly young females nevertheless.. trying to be queens.

It's close to "knowledge prostitution". Just googled this: what's about people whose lives rotate around knowledge selling themselves online then? Same business. Many germans (highest number of prostitutes per 100,000 population) btw, and italians (highest percentage of immigrant prostitutes)... and spaniards (a prototypical brothel-country since late 2000s).. it's a 'knowledge prostitution'-based culture at wikipedia.

And all this illogicity is peacefully rolling on 250 million hits per day (as if the above wasn't enough, sorry). 31.51.93.193 (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Delete section "Usage in scientific research"

None of the examples is is a catch-22. They all lack the paradoxical feedback loop which is IMHO central to a catch-22. Unless somebody can come up with real examples (or rewrite the existing ones to show the catch-22), I will delete the whole section in a few days. --Ligneus (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"Catch-22"

The usage of Catch-22 is under discussion, see Talk:Catch-22 (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 November 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

what if...

What if one person requests a mental evaluation for everybody else? They are all found to be insane and are all grounded. Of course I don't know if you can request mental evaluations for other people but if you could then it would be a surefire way of getting every person except one grounded.

Of course this is bad for the one 'sane' person but it's better than all having to do combat duty180.216.251.175 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Faking it?

In Heller's logical argument regarding the fighter pilot, supposedly you are not able to get out of flying if you are sane because you either take the mental health examination and you're proven you can fly or you don't take the examination and you are assumed you can still fly, and the Catch-22 is that you can't get out of flying if you are sane but you would need to be insane in order to fly. I hope I am understanding that correctly. But what if you face the mental health examination? Shouldn't that show that you can avoid flying if you are sane? Shouldn't that break the argument that you are insane no matter what you do? 162.247.228.13 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No. You never get to face the mental health examination. The premise is that only the insane would voluntarily fly, and the sane would try to avoid it. To be excused flying on mental health grounds you have to ask. The act of asking is taken to be proof of mental fitness, and hence no examination is necessary – you are proved sane and you must fly. Captainllama (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)