What does Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 11:14-16 ?

[McCulloch]

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

"Nature itself teach you" ? How does that work? In what way does nature teach us about hair cuts and gender?

[bluethread]

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

It isn't a dishonour for a man to have long hair. Therefore Paul is wrong. If he is commenting on some convention, this statement has no place in Scripture and should never have been included.

Drawing conclusions about women's long hair or men's short hair is rather silly. When he strays from what he's good at, Paul is as capable as anyone else of blundering. This is a good illustration.
Defending him on theological grounds reduces Scripture to silliness, so perhaps we should simply accept that Paul is a fallible human being.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that Paul is infallible, Paul never claimed to be and even boasted of his frailties, because it was there that he must most depend on Adonai. That said, your assertion, "It isn't a dishonour for a man to have long hair." is no more or less scientifically factual than Paul's view. Honor is a matter of convention. Nature, in a scientific sense, does not grant honor, societies do. In some societies men are not dishonored for having long hair. Paul is speaking to a rabbinic standard not a scientific fact. Asserting the opposite is a common error in the scientific age.

[marco]

Paul is speaking to a rabbinic standard not a scientific fact. Asserting the opposite is a common error in the scientific age.

Were we of a mind to we can justify anything or render an absurd statement a piece of good sense. When we are motivated not to bury Paul's bad advice but to praise it, then we can do wonders.

If we accept that Paul, now and then, is advocating standards that do not apply to us then perhaps, as I said, such statements have no place in Scripture. His idiosyncrasies are hardly God's word. And though he insists on his humility, methinks he doth protest too much in that area. He is, as far as I can see, regarded as one who speaks with the infallible thunder of God - which is always a problem.