Paradox and method

No method can be shown to parsimoniously select methods which do not generate paradoxes, since it, itself, could not be independently shown not to generate paradoxes without generating a regress of such methods.  (Apart from all the halting problem etc. issues ...)

On the other hand, we need to assume that whatever method we are using to construct this argument does not lead to paradox, since that would render it unintelligible.  And, ultimately, we can't constructively substantiate this assumption without generating a regress.

However, we have the comfort that 'nothing can be shown to be intelligible' must, at least, be intelligible - and so false.  This gives us a recursive solution to the 'constructive substantiation' problem, and possibly also the problem of paradoxes - although I think these will turn out to be necessary, rather than inconvenient.

The reason for this is that we give reasons.  Any attempt to give complete reasons that doesn't point to a recursive root will generate paradoxes, and recursive roots are (at least tacitly) agreed rather demonstrated.  (Persistent denial of candidates has the consequence of rendering even the denial unintelligible.)