Calling something a "paradox" is statement about the map, and is relative to a person. I.e., something can be paradoxical to you but not to me.
Calling something a "contradiction", on the other hand, is a statement about the territory.
> some group of people have flawed knowledge relating to P such that there is an apparent contradiction in their knowledge.
> certain people's beliefs about P contain illusory contradictions.
These are both (specific forms of) paradoxes.
Actual contradiction is also (a different, specific form of) paradox.
This is a common usage of the word paradox, and is not incorrect, but "apparent contradiction" is also in common use , also correct, and is the way in which the word is used in the term "Moravec's Paradox".
EDIT: Both usages of the term are compatible, in the same way that "dog" and "Labrador" are both correct terms with which to refer to a Labrador (but only one is correct when referring to, e.g., a Husky).
I'm arguing that it is neither paradoxical nor contradictory, and that there is an error (outlined in my initial comment) in the maps in which it seems such.
Calling something a "contradiction", on the other hand, is a statement about the territory.
> some group of people have flawed knowledge relating to P such that there is an apparent contradiction in their knowledge.
> certain people's beliefs about P contain illusory contradictions.
These are both (specific forms of) paradoxes.
Actual contradiction is also (a different, specific form of) paradox.
This is a common usage of the word paradox, and is not incorrect, but "apparent contradiction" is also in common use , also correct, and is the way in which the word is used in the term "Moravec's Paradox".
EDIT: Both usages of the term are compatible, in the same way that "dog" and "Labrador" are both correct terms with which to refer to a Labrador (but only one is correct when referring to, e.g., a Husky).