There are a lots of paradoxes in the social sciences.

I would agree with you there, in the sense that social sciences very rarely have fundamental laws or absolute truths. But the problem with this view is thinking it's okay for two concepts to appear to be contradictory. Because they can't be contradictory on the level of atoms and molecules. People run on physics.

It's like saying that "Mary had chemotherapy for her cancer, and her cancer went into remission, but Joe had chemotherapy and he died anyway" is a paradox. The only reason that phrase appears contradictory is that information is being lost, lots of it. If you could look at the source code for the universe, you'd be able to see whether Joe's cancer had been at a more advanced stage than Mary's, or whether his tumor had genetic mutations making it harder to kill than Mary's, or whether his DNA predisposed him to more aggressive cancers, period. Or maybe Joe happened to catch pneumonia during his chemo, and Mary didn't.

Humans behave rationally in some situations. Under certain conditions, you give a human input and you get an output, and if you had somehow fed that same complex input to an advanced computer program designed to make rational decisions, it would have given the same output. In some situations, though, humans take input and you get an output that's different from the decision your computer program would make, i.e. irrational. But if you took apart the universe's source code for your human brain, you'd see that both decisions were the result of operations being done with neurons. The "irrational" decision doesn't appear in the brain out of nowhere; it's still processed in the brain itself.