I have compiled a list of origins of exceptions and paradoxes (Scheme 1). It is important to note that this list is certainly not exhaustive; rather, my aim is to lay the groundwork for more comprehensive thinking. I categorize these origins into two groups, with the first group focusing on reasoning. Examples include but are not limited to 1) invalidity of underlying assumptions, 2) incomplete parameter inclusion, and 3) situations where one parameter obscures others. In an ideal realm of reasoning, these types of perceived paradoxes would be "nonexistent," meaning they would not be considered paradoxical but rather different cases still within our framework of understanding. In reality, however, perfect reasoning is unattainable, making these types of perceived paradoxes very common. Given the diverse areas of expertise and thinking styles, the identification of something as paradoxical can be subjective; a result may seem paradoxical to some but not to others. Nonetheless, while these origins of exceptions and paradoxes may be interpreted subjectively, they are statistically still universal. The latter aspect, unavoidable even with perfect reasoning, arises when one or more key ontological elements are/were unidentified and cannot be replaced by combining known elements in new ways. This often paves the way for the formulation of a new paradigm. Consequently, these origins are not subjective but universally applicable. I select some origins of exceptions and paradoxes listed in Scheme 1 and provide some examples for each. Importantly, while each example is chosen to illustrate one origin, some examples manifest more than one postulated origin. Additionally, these origins are not completely orthogonal to each other but can exhibit some overlap. While some of the chosen examples might be controversial, I intend to use them to illustrate a way of thinking rather than to dogmatize the conclusions themselves. Origin 1. Affirming the consequent. This is a common logical fallacy that occurs when one concludes that if a statement's consequent is true, then its antecedent must also be true. In other words, it involves reasoning from the consequence of a statement back to the statement itself. This reasoning is flawed because there could be multiple reasons for the consequent to be true, not just the presence of antecedent.