Farzad Didehvar

Throughout this paper, by representing some paradoxes and their associated proofs and arguments, we try to show the cases which proving some assertions doesn’t conclude the truth of them. In the next step, we try to find out Which proofs could be considered as reliable in a way that it shows the Truth of their related assertion, specially We claim that math- metical proofs could be considered as reliable ones in this sense. Nevertheless, we claim that the validation of the previous assertion is comparable to validation of Church Thesis in Computability Theory. So, we could use it and we consider these proofs as reliable ones but we should be doubtful about their truth. At last we give a possible explanation for this subject (based on local arguments and global arguments, the concepts which we introduce them throughout this paper), and we investigate the validity of this explanation. What we should bold it here is: In this approach we know the proofs in these paradoxes as correct proofs, but the point which we want to stress on that would be: the proof doesn’t show the truth..