Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Update on Aristotle tautology.

11 views

Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,

Oct 18, 2009, 3:29:25 PM10/18/09

Here is a revision http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology of my
ongoing wiki on the concept of a tautology.

== Tautologies from Aristotle ==
(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2):
:'''OoS:'''".............So what hinders the different parts (of the
body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the
teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted
for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating
the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was
the '''result of accident'''. And in like manner as to other parts in
which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,
therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole)
happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these
were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished
and still perish.........."

The passage reduces to: Things appropriately constituted were
preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished. Or in
other words: The good ones lived, the bad ones died , which explains
everything. ''Appropriately constituted'' and ''preserved'' are a
synonymous play with words that alludes to the same fact but it
doesn't independently derive the actual reason something was
preserved. To identify the tautology take any of the synonymous terms
or words and formulate a question:
* Other than noting it was preserved how was it's constitutability
measured?
* Other than noting it wasn't constituted how was it's perishability
measured?

Wasn't constituted and perishable says the same thing twice, making
Aristotle's argument watertight, explaining everything meeting any
contingency with unflagging success , it cannot be refuted and is
thus a [[LogicalFallacy]]. His tautology reduces to: The good one
lived, the bad one died. This can be extended to anything in existence
such as: ".....the good gene survived, the bad gene died...." in the
light of [[OriginOfSpeciesAsMyth]] -
http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth.

After quoting Aristotle, Darwin went on to say: "...... we can see
here the principle of [[NaturalSelection]] shadowed forth....". The
question is how did Darwin solve the problem of genes as a
[[CyberneticAbstraction]] if he couldn't define the problem? This
question must be extended back to Aristotle and the answer is that
Aristotle explained everything: past, present and future, thus
nothing, his control of the facts was an illusion. Furthermore
Aristotle's premise that everything was the ''result of accident''
means that everything he said ultimately is the result on an accident,
including the very paragraph itself, why then should we believe a word
he said?

Aristotle formulated a rhetorical tautology in order to convince that
the apparent design in the universe was a '''result of accident'''. He
allowed no means for his [[world view]] to be [[Falsifiable]], thus
his conclusion based on proposition which cannot be refuted was a
[[Non_sequitur_(logic) Non sequitur (logic)]]. [[CharlesKingsley]] in
a letter dated 1863 to [[FrederickMaurice]] he interpreted Oos as:
:".. Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by
the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out against
Darwin are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact or else
by invoking the tedium theologium.... The state of the scientific
mind; they find that now they have got rid of an interfering God - a
master magician as I call it -- they have to choose between the
absolute '''empire of accident''' and a living, immanent, ever-working
God..."

:[[JohnBurroughs]] in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
call '''chance or Natural Selection'''. Well may Darwin have said that
the eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...."

The concept [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] had with [[NaturalSelection]] in
1922, March 5 New York Times differed from Burroughs interpretation.
Today many use [[NaturalSelection]] in the volitional sense. NS like
"You have a green light" has no single true meaning, the various
concepts is important by many authors and their [[world view]]. The
difficulty is that they all used [[NaturalSelection]] but what they
meant by it differed like day contrasts with night.

During the 19th Tremaux (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/
00003806/01/Tremaux-on-species.pdf) differed with the belief held then
that the mind is an illusion. If a person says: "My mind is an
illusion created by the brain" then that very sentence itself is an
illusion because it was formulated by his mind. In addition why should
one believe a word he says if he thinks everything he says is the
result of illusions in his head?

backspace

unread,

Oct 24, 2009, 11:07:12 AM10/24/09

On Oct 18, 10:29 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a revision http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
> of my
> ongoing wiki on the concept of a tautology.

Discussed the issue here rather on talk.origins and as an outflow of
that have updated the Aristotle section:
http://groups.google.to/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4828cd8302a35bfa/98cfcde805dd724e?lnk=raot

:[[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.
"....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as
Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered
process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an
overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble
and place in order line after line of animals in their true
evolutionary succession, extending , in the case of what I have called
the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. .....
Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.."

Osborn has a different concept with "natural selection", "evolution"
etc. then the concept Kingsley, Burroughs and Darwin had. Which
demonstrates the point that no word or phrase has a single true
meaning. Somebody said: Outside there is a selection of rocks. If
Peter put it there then "selection" is used in volitional sense, if a
storm hit a mountain then non-volitional. What does the various
authors today mean with "selection" : volition or non-volition?

[[NaturalSelection]] is an [[OxyMoron]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Oxymoron) a contradiction in terms. See http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2808
for a particular view on this. [[JohnBurroughs]] interpretation of
Darwin as '''chance or Natural Selection''' meant Burroughs used
"Natural" to mean by nature or chance and "selection" means volition,
two contradictory concepts in one term with the whole term used by
Burroughs to convey his interpretation of Darwin's concept: "chance".
But the natural selection oxymoron can be used in reverse to convey a
volitional concept.

Today many use [[NaturalSelection]] in the volitional sense. NS like
"You have a green light" has no single true meaning, the various
concepts is important by many authors and their [[world view]]. The
difficulty is that they all used [[NaturalSelection]] but what they

meant by it differed like day contrasts with night, with the
oxymoronic nature of natural selection exacerbating such confusion.

[[FoxnewsJonathanPragmatics]] and [[JerryAdler]] says ''random natural
selection'' , Dawkins talks of ''non-random natural selection'' or
''directed natural selection''. [[NaturalSelection]] as an
[[Oxymoron]] allows itself to be used in either sense volitional,non-
random,directed or non-volitional,random,"what happens,happens".
Darwin, [[JohnBurroughs]] and [[CharlesKingsley]] interpreting
Darwin, used the "random side" of ''natural selection'' - natural,
while given the [[world view]] or [[Pragmatics]] of
[[HenryFairfieldOsborn]], he would probably have used it in reverse,
the ''directed side'' - selection. Further research is needed on the
[[world view]] of [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]]. Darwin used evolution and
natural selection interchangeably and it is so widely done today to
the extent that there isn't really any difference in the concept a
user is projecting: Either volition or non-volition, patterns or
designs. Darwin's ''Theory of evolution'' formulation is the same
concept as his reformulation of Aristotle which he called ''principle
of natural selection''.

== Is a tautology true by definition? ==
Is a tautology defined as something which is true by definition? This
depends what is meant with ''"tautology"'', no word has a single true
meaning as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics. There are a
range of concepts for which one word will not suffice particularly in
the English language , Greek in contrast has single words with a
single meaning such as ''Agape''. A ''rhetorical tautology'' involves
a deceitful attempt at persuasion. ''Tautological expressions'' are
used in poetry. The logical validity ''X = X'' could also be a
''rhetorical tautology'' or ''tautological proposition'' if used in a
different context such as: X=x and therefore a [[monkey gave birth to
a human]](Non_sequitur_(logic)).

It depends on the context in which terms and words are used by signal
sender and how signal receiver decodes it. In computer generated
theorem verification the idea is to avoid ''logical tautologies'' such
as ''X=X'' since this is not result to be obtained. The result would
be logically valid but unintended and thus a Logical Tautology
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)) If ''X=X'' is
generated it is assumed that the set theorist wasn't trying to
deceitfully convince others of his [[world view]], hence ''logical
tautology'' and not ''rhetorical tautology''. Obviously ''X=X'' but
when tutoring entry level algebra ''X=X'' might not be so obvious and
the ''logical validity'' of ''X=X'' needs to be grasped as a low level
concept. ''X=X'' in one context says the same thing twice in order to
convince of a [[world view]] which is a Non_sequitur. In another
context affirms it as a logical validity for its pedagogical use and
in another context is a logical validity but not intended(logical
tautology).

[[JohnWilkins]] confuses these subtleties by defining a
tautology:".... something which is defined as being true by
definition..." due to his particular [[world view]] and his
realization that ''survival of the fittest'' by Spencer was a
tautological proposition. See [[JohnWilkins]] for his post on this
issue. There are threads by Wilkins on Usenet talk.origins dealing
with the http://www.talkorigins.org tautology article that he wrote
where he stated that the article is out of date, and needs to be
rewritten.

''X=X'' and ''what happens, happens'' are true by definition but what
is the context in which it is used or the [[Pragmatics]]? The issue
isn't the semantic definition of a word but the multiple concepts that
can be communicated with words such as for example "random,selection,
accumulation etc.", which elsewhere in this document is shown to be
able to be used in both the volitional and non-volitional sense. There
are five Greek words for love: Agape, Phile, Eros. Agape is used in
the New Testament to describe God's love for man. Eros means sexual
love and isn't used in the New Testament.

In English the context or [[Pragmatics]] with the word "love"
determines what is meant by signal sender to signal receiver. The
[[Aristotelians]] (not evolutionists , a word coined by Darwin in OoS)
are exploiting the English language to hide what they mean by words
such as selection(who did the selecting?), accumulation, tautology,
evolution etc: What will be , will be, with the [[Premise]] of
[[RetrospectiveSpecification]]. A widely held underlying premise is
the multi-universe theory: Out of billions of possible universes we
were the one that happened to be in existence, but the sample space is
actually two: Either we exist or we don't , not billions.

* X=X, and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human(Non_sequitur) -
''Rhetorical tautology' or fallacious.
* X=X, in an entry level class on algebra stated for its pedagogical
use - ''Logical validity'' and not fallacious.
* X=X, in computer theorem verification, but unintended result -
''Logical tautology'' and not fallacious.
* X=X, Jokingly said by one set theorist to another - ''Tautological
expression'' and not fallacious.
* X=X Random paper picked up in the street what does it mean? It
depends on who said X = X - ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pragmatics''. And the same goes for ''natural selection'' which like
''You have a green light'' has no single true meaning.
* 4=3, random paper picked up in the street means what? '''Without
knowing who wrote it isn't even wrong.'''

The subtleties and nuances of what it means to say the same thing
twice can't be separated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
Any article dealing with the concept of a tautology and not
incorporating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics like the
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric) is deceit
and deception by the Wikipedia editors because their [[world view]].

backspace

unread,

Oct 31, 2009, 4:39:30 PM10/31/09

Here is the latest update to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology:
I am posting the full version because the page is getting vandalized.

== concept ==
url of this page: http://bit.ly/ds42t
A tautology is the label for ''saying the same thing twice'' and what
this means can't be separated from the [[Pragmatics]] of the
individual.
Conclusions as to what it means to formulate the same concept twice
will generally eminate from whomever is arbitrating the proper parsing
of the words at issue. An element of interpersonal power-dynamics can
infuse itself into definitional debates. The editor can label
something a tautology so as to better dismiss the opposition's
position if it conflicts with his [[world view]]. Saying the same
thing twice takes on varying nuances either fallacious, logically
valid or poetic:
* Rhetoric, propositions.
* language verbosity, expressions, poetry, language redundancy.
* logical validity.
* logically valid but unintended and thus a Logical Tautology -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)].

A rhetorical tautology is defined as a series of statements that
comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a
way that the truth of the propositions are guaranteed or that the
'''truth of the propositions cannot be disputed''' by defining a term
in terms of another self referentially: It says the same thing twice
or repeats the same concept using words or terms in the
''synonymous''sense. The argument is formulated in such a way that it
cannot be refuted. A story in the New York Times isn't confirmed by
reading it twice and neither is a [[world view]] confirmed by
expressing it twice.

Consequently the statement conveys no useful information regardless of
its length or complexity making it [[Unfalsifiable]]. It is
formulating a description in a way that masquerades as an explanation
when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently
derived. The statement ''"If you can't find something (that you
lost), you are not looking in the right place"'' is tautological. It
is true and can't be disputed, but conveys no useful information. As a
physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board was
full of bulls-eyes could be called a "tautological" game. The player
would not lose. Any argument containing a tautology is flawed and must
be considered a [[LogicalFallacy]].

A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not
a game. Mathematical equations, such as '''E = mc<sup>2</sup>''', are
not tautologies. The terms on both sides of the equation are defined
elsewhere independently. The equal sign does not mean "is defined by"
but rather equal to, establishing an equivalence. It doesn't define
one term in term's of another. Acceleration and mass independently
don't equal force but their product '''MA''' as derived by Newton
does, hence the equation '''F=MA''' isn't a tautology. '''X=X''' could
be a logical validity,''mathematical redundancy'' or a logical
tautology depending on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics or
motive behind it. There is no language without a motive. A [[Truism]]
is true by definition, it is not a tautology but can be reformulated
in a tautological manner in order to disguise the truistic nature of
the original statement and underlying [[Premise]]s. The dividing line
between a [[Truism]] and an observation is [[Pragmatics]]. Neither is
[[Begging the question]] a tautology. A [[Truism]] is embedded inside
an argument in an attempt to disguise that the conclusion based on the
argument's core is a [[Non_sequitur_(logic) Non sequitur (logic)]].
''The sun shines'' is an observation, it becomes a [[Truism]] if used
in an argument to influence the hearer to come to a conclusion which
doesn't follow logically from the core of the argument.

The truism in such a case should be considered a [http:///index.php?
title=Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)&action=edit&redlink=1 Red herring
(logical fallacy)] an irrelevant piece of trivia employed as a
rhetorical [[smoke screen]]. Tautologies, circular reasoning and
[[Truism]]s are used together as a rhetorical device in a deceptive
attempt to argue for a view if it isn't possible to independently
establish the real reason for the viewpoint elsewhere. The seeming
complexity of such an argument might comes across as well reasoned
but is really just the articulation of a [[world view]] that can't be
[[Falsified]].

Rhetorical tautologies are a [[Synonymous]] play with words that
alludes to the same fact but in doing so presents itself as an
explanation giving the illusion of uncovering the actual reason for
the observation. An example of this would be the following
proposition:
* ''favorable traits become more common and unfavorable traits become
less common.''
The word ''favorable'' and the term ''more common'' says the same
thing twice, which doesn't tell us the actual reason the traits become
more common. This is illustrated with two questions:
* Other than noting the traits became more common how was their
favorability measured?
* Other than noting the traits were favorable how was their capacity
to increase measured?

The argument is formulated in such a way that it cannot be refuted.
Furthermore the underlying [[Premise]] and [[word view]] of the
formulator must be questioned because it might contain
[[circularity]], [[false dichotomies]],[[RetrospectiveSpecification]]
with the tautology an attempt to disguise these underlying [[Logical
fallacies]]. What he assumes to be the truth will cast a different
light on the sentence then another person with a different [[world
view]] because there is no language without a motive and no sentence
has a single true meaning, the sentence must be interpreted within the
persons [[Pragmatics]]. If a cat walked over a keyboard and by random
luck typed out the sentence it would have no meaning.

== Identify tautology ==
Identify the terms in a sentence or passage used in the ''synonymous''
sense. Take any of these terms or words and reformulate the sentence
as a question in terms of the other word. This will show whether the
terms or words says the same thing twice.

== Circular reasoning isn't a tautology ==
Begging the question assumes the premise in the conclusion , such as
Tiktaalik. How does one know whether he had kids or not, if he had no
offspring, how could he be the ancestor of anybody? Circular reasoning
isn't saying the same thing twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics]. There are a range of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics]. Any article dealing with the

concept of a tautology and not incorporating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
like the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
is deceit and deception by the Wikipedia editors because their [[world
view]].

== Tautologies from Aristotle ==

http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth].

:[[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.

"....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as
Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered
process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an
overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble
and place in order line after line of animals in their true
evolutionary succession, extending , in the case of what I have called
the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. .....
Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.."

authors today mean with "selection" : volition or non-volition?

[[NaturalSelection]] is an [[OxyMoron]]([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Oxymoron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron]) a contradiction in

terms. See http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2808 for a
particular view on this. [[JohnBurroughs]] interpretation of Darwin as
'''chance or Natural Selection''' meant Burroughs used "Natural" to
mean by nature or chance and "selection" means volition, two
contradictory concepts in one term with the whole term used by
Burroughs to convey his interpretation of Darwin's concept: "chance".
But the natural selection oxymoron can be used in reverse to convey a
volitional concept.

Today many use [[NaturalSelection]] in the volitional sense. NS like

"You have a green light" has no single true meaning, the various
concepts is important by many authors and their [[world view]]. The
difficulty is that they all used [[NaturalSelection]] but what they

meant by it differed like day contrasts with night, with the
oxymoronic nature of natural selection exacerbating such confusion.

During the 19th Tremaux ([http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/
00003806/01/Tremaux-on-species.pdf

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003806/01/Tremaux-on-species.pdf])
differed with the belief held then that the mind is an illusion. If a
person says: "My mind is an illusion created by the brain" then that
very sentence itself is an illusion because it was formulated by his
mind. In addition why should one believe a word he says if he thinks
everything he says is the result of illusions in his head?

== Example of a tautological proposition ==
''The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy.''
:S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
'''Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225'''.

* How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except by noting that
the groups disappeared?
* How was their disapearability measured except by noting that they
were "extinction-prone"?

Gould formulated the proposition so that it cannot be disputed:
"''..certain groups were extinction prone because they
disappeared..''" But the real reason for their extinction needs be
derived independently elsewhere. Nothing is explained by stating that
because they were ''extinction prone'' they died, their death implies
that they were ''extinction prone.'' ''Extinction'' and ''disappear''
or ''death'' are a synonymous play with words that alludes to the same
fact but masquerades as an explanation. It is derived from Aristotle
and Epicurus philosophy: The good (robot,gene rabbit etc) lived while
the bad one died or in other words: What happens happens.

=== Talk origins ===
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
environment." Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was
measured
(apart from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?

=== Irish Elk ===
Mayr, trying to explain why things like the giant antlers of the
"[[Irish Elk]]" and the canines of saber-toothed tigers aren't
problematic for Darwinism:
quote:
"All these features would seem, at first sight, to be highly
deleterious, and it was claimed
that natural selection could not possibly have favored or even
tolerated their evolution. However, the studies of Rensch, Simpson,
Gould, and various other paleontologists have demonstrated that the
species that had these "excessive" characters always flourished for
considerable periods of time when these characters clearly were of
selective advantage and that their ultimate extinction coincided with
a climatic or broad faunal change which simultaneously led to the
extinction of nummerous other species without such `excessive'
characters."
''E. Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an
Evolutionist , (Harvard University Press, 1988), p. 250.''
'''Ques:'''These species "flourished", so their structures must have
been favored after all?

=== Wikipedia's natural selection opening paragraph ===
:Dec 2008 to Dec2007 revision of natural selection on Wikipedia main
article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753
"''....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable
traits become more common in successive generations of a population of
reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less
common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes....''"
But no citation is given of any modern or ancient works, nor do we
know who was the author and what is his [[world view]], background
knowledge or [[Pragmatics]] and who he was interpreting. If Darwin was
interpreted how did Darwin explain something he didn't know about:
Genes? What was this Wikipedia contributor's view on the question of:
''[[WhatIsLife]]'' - http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?page=all
''The meaning of Life''? For all we know a cat could have walked over
a keyboard.

=== Saying the same thing twice ===
Is the contention that "free gift" is a tautology true? . To assert
that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to misframe the
particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a dinner
and a movie to his date may be a "gift" but it sometimes comes bundled
with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner asks first
"if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets the answer
"no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free gift" of
dinner. It is incorrect that no gift can ever have non-free
implications attached to it.

Another example is "suddenly, without warning". If two armies oppose
each other in the field and one commander sends the opposition a
warning message as follows "I instruct you to retreat or I will
attack", any subsequent attack, sudden or otherwise, was warned.
"Sudden" means "happening or coming unexpectedly". But students of
military history have noted; via effective deception, any attack can
be seen as "sudden", even if fair warning was previously given.

In the context of above and paraphrasing [[JerryFodor]]: What then is
the intended meaning of : natural,selection, [[FitNess]],
genotype,phenotype, [[FitnessLandscapes]], [[EcologicalNiches]],
evolution, evolutionary, [[DarWinism]],[[AdapTation]], [[AlleLe]],
[[DarWinian]] , [[random natural selection]], [[non-random natural
selection]], [[random design]], [[non-random design]] ? To answer
the question we must be told who is the individual using the terms,
from what time era and knowledge.

== Darwin on propositions which cannot be disputed ==
There are key passages where Darwin reformulated [[PatrickMatthew]]s,
[[JamesHutton]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d
%27Omalius_d%27Halloy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d%27Omalius_d%27Halloy],
Epicurus, Spencer and Aristotle labeling their concept [[Natural
selection|natural selection]] and makes his argument irrefutable or
[[Unfalsifiable]] by using the phrase ''propositions which cannot be
disputed''. d'Halloy's concept with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification
in 1848 was labeled ''natural selection'' by Darwin.

:'''OoS''' For if each part is liable to individual variations at all
ages, and the variations tend to be inherited at a corresponding or
earlier age--'''''propositions which cannot be disputed'''''--then the
instincts and structure of the young could be slowly modified as
surely as those of the adult; and both cases must stand or fall
together with the whole theory of [[Natural selection|natural
selection]].

:'''OoS'''".......... That many and serious objections may be advanced
against the ''theory of descent with modification'' through variation
and [[Natural selection|natural selection]], I do not deny. I have
endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can
appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and
instincts have been '''perfected''', not by means superior to, though
analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable
slight variations, each '''good''' for the individual possessor.
Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination
insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following
''propositions'', namely, that all parts of the organisation and
instincts offer, at least individual differences--that there is a
struggle for existence leading to the '''preservation''' of
'''profitable''' deviations of structure or instinct--and, lastly,
that gradations in the state of '''perfection''' of each organ may
have existed, each '''good''' of its kind. ''''' The truth of these
propositions cannot, I think, be disputed. '''''........."

The words ''preservation'', ''profitable'', ''perfection'',
''perfected'' and ''good'' are a synonymous play with words that
alludes to same fact as shown by reducing the passage it to its core
proposition which cannot be disputed: Species are engaged in a
struggle for existence leading to the ''preservation'' of those
''profitable'' structures that allowed them to survive.

:'''OoS:'''".........IF under changing conditions of life organic
beings present individual differences in almost every part of their
structure, and this '''cannot be disputed'''; if there be, owing to
their geometrical rate of increase, a severe struggle for life at some
age, season, or year, and this '''certainly cannot be disputed''';
then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all
organic beings to each other and to their conditions of life, causing
an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be
'''advantageous''' to them, it would be a most extraordinary fact if
no variations had ever occurred '''useful''' to each being’s own
welfare, in the same manner as so many variations have occurred useful
to man. But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur,
'''assuredly''' individuals thus characterised will have the
'''best''' chance of being '''preserved''' in the struggle for life;
and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to
produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of
'''preservation''', or the [survival of the fittest], I have called
[[Natural Selection]]. It leads to the '''improvement''' of each
creature in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life,
and consequently, in most cases, to what must be regarded as an
'''advance''' in organisation....."

* '''Question:''' Other than noting the offspring survived how was
their [[Fitness|fitness]] or suitability(Spencer's word) measured?

== Darwin defined natural selection only once ==
"...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often
used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more
accurate ...."
* How did Darwin measure the variations usefulness other than noting
they were preserved?
* How did Darwin measure the variations preservability other than
noting they were useful?

=== Darwin on the preservation of individuals ===
''"....All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next
chapter, follow from the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle,
variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they
be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their
infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their
physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such
individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring..."''

Which reduces to: Variations that are profitable will result in the
preservation of such individuals. "profitable" and "preservation"
alludes to the same fact guaranteeing the truth of the proposition. It
reflects Aristotle and Epicurus underlying philosophy : What
happens, happens.

== Natural selection ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection/Archive_8
''Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with
favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those
with unfavorable traits.''

'''Question:''' Other than noting that the traits survived how was
their favorability measured? ''more likely'' and ''favorable'' alludes
to the same fact guaranteeing the truth of the proposition and is thus
fallacious. The tautology also assumes the underlying premise, thus
begging the question: It is assumed that all species today are
descendant from other species, this is the very issue that must be
proven. See this thread for further clarity by author [[NoShellSwill]]
on Google groups -
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a9582738eb994b2b/1ac2fc0c52c491d9#1ac2fc0c52c491d9

The term ''natural selection'' Darwin lifted from [[PatrickMatthew]]
''natural means of selection''. The concept with NS though was from
[[JamesHutton]] in 1794 and can be traced back all the way to
Aristotle and Epicurus. No word or sentence has a single true meaning
or concept. SoF for example is either a tautological proposition or
expression depending on who says SoF, just like "Beer is Beer" has
an intention, either fallacious or poetic depending on who uttered
the phrase, as this [http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/
1114725461.shtml http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1114725461.shtml].
SoF and Beer-is-Beer etc. doesn't have a single true meaning.
[[JamesHutton]](1794), [[PatrickMatthew]]s, Wallace,
[[HerbertSpencer]], Darwin and others reformulated Aristotle and
Epicurus original tautology in many different ways. The grammatical
gargoyle ''natural selection''was the term coined to associated this
tautology with by Darwin.

:talk archive revision of Natural selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection/Archive_8 Natural
selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable
traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with
unfavorable traits.

:Dec 2008 to Dec2007 revision of natural selection on Wikipedia main
article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753
"....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable
traits become more common in successive generations of a population of
reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less
common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...."

:Sept 2009 revision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Sept 2009
"...Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that
make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully
reproduce become more common in a population over successive
generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

Neither of these revisions cite any pages in Darwin's OoS , who wrote
these paragraphs ? The 2008 one had "Genes", which Darwin and
Aristotle didn't know about. Why was genes removed in the 2009
revision, it is like imagine somebody removes the word "Newton" in a
revision of the gravity article.

== Epicurus ==
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A12&pageseq=1
''"....That great enigma, 'the exquisite adaptation of one part of an
organism to another part, and to the conditions of life,' more
especially the construction of the human body, Democritus made no
attempt to solve. Empedocles, a man of more fiery and poetic nature,
introduced the notion of love and hate among the atoms to account for,
their combination and separation. Noticing this gap in the doctrine of
Democritus, he struck in with the penetrating thought, linked,
however, with some wild speculation, that it lay in the very nature of
those combinations which were suited to their ends (in other words, in
harmony with their environment) to maintain themselves, while unfit
combinations, having no proper habitat, must rapidly disappear. Thus
more than 2,000 years ago the doctrine of the 'survival of the
fittest,' which in our day, not on the basis of vague conjecture, but
of positive knowledge, has been raised to such extraordinary
significance, had received at all events partial enunciation.3..."''

=== rephrase ===
Epicurus struck with the penetrating thought ..... that it lay in
the very nature of those combinations which were ...... in harmony
with their environment... to maintain themselves, while unfit
combinations disappear.
Thus more than 2,000 years ago the doctrine of the 'survival of the
fittest,'......... has been raised to significance....,

=== rephrase ===
Epicurus struck with the penetrating thought ..... that those in
harmony with their environment maintained themselves, while the unfit
combinations disappear.
Thus more than 2,000 years ago the doctrine of the 'survival of the
fittest was has been raised to significance.

=== rephrase for tautological essence ===
''Those in harmony maintained themselves, while the unfit disappear.
'' This proposition cannot be disputed hence is a logical fallacy. It
reflects Aristotle philosophy : What happens, happens.
See Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity (Sather Classical
Lectures) (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/Creationism-Critics-Antiquity-Classical-Lectures/dp/0520260066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228971065&sr=1-1

== Is survival of the fittest a tautology ? ==
That depends on who says SoF and in what context with what background
knowledge and [[Pragmatics]] since a term only means what an
individual intends it to mean. Try and contact [[Herbert Spencer]] and
ask him two questions:
* ''Other than noting the species survived how was their fitness or
suitability measured?''
* ''Other than noting they were suitable how was their survivability
measured? ''

Spencer sold over a million books, OoS was read by a person in 1860
with Spencer's ideas, today Spencer is hardly ever mentioned. From his
writing with fitness he meant suitable, he was widely sited during the
19th century. As Darwin wrote:"..natural selection or survival of the
fittest which is a better expression....." which to a read back then
meant: "....survival of the most suitable is a better expression....."
Today nobody knows what is meant with the word "fitness", what concept
is being conveyed isn't clear. "Fitness" isn't a concept, but a means
for signal sender to encode his particular concept within in his
reference frame a 150 years after Spencer.

== selection of rocks ==
Selection, modification, random, "selection at random" , random
selection, probability sample, directed selection, non-random
selection are all '''symbol strings''', they are not concepts. Only a
conscious being can have a concept and uses these ''symbol strings''
to encode his concept.

* 1) What happens happens.: '''There was a selection of rocks on the
mountain after the earthquake'''. The earthquake had no intent to
assemble an assortment or selection of rocks, the symbol string
selection in this case isn't associated with consciousness.
* 2) '''The mountaineers assembled a selection of rocks to form a
camp'''. Selection here conveys the concept of consciousness.
* 3) Outside there lies a selection of rocks. What this means depends
on who says so [[Pragmatics]]. For example Peter could have placed a
selection of rocks outside(design) or a storm could have dislodged a
selection of rocks(pattern) from a mountain. The sentence would be
just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if it isn't known who
said so as per the [[Pragmatics]] article on Wikipedia.
* 3) ''Random selection'' or ''Selection at random'' - what is the
difference? See http://bit.ly/19lJrY

See http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2007-12/msg04506.html
for the concept John Harshman has with "selection".
JH wrote: "......Selection does not implicitly denote
intellegence....." Which is correct in the same way that "random"
isn't always used in "what happens happens" sense as per [http://
bit.ly/19lJrY http://bit.ly/19lJrY]. The examples JH gave are in the
sense of 1) - what will be, will be. The problem is that it isn't
always clear in what context "selection" is being used or why it is
being used at all because in 99% of cases "selectus or selection" is
used to convey the concept of volition. Who did the selecting? -
nobody then why are transmutationists using selection.
:'''Sam wrote''': ''"...Get a jar of peanuts. Close your eyes and
reach into the jar, selecting a peanut. You have now randomly selected
a peanut! Don't they have bingo where you live? Or the lottery?..."''
which was addressed here http://bit.ly/19lJrY

== accumulation ==
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51836&p=1171619#p1171619
LogosCalamus wrote:"''.....I use the word "accumulation" in preference
to "selection". Accumulation does not imply intelligent choice.
Selection is a good word to use if you believe god did it, or if there
exist a mathematical patern. There are scientists, evolutionary
humanists and evo-psychologists who debate the usefulness of
"selection".....''"

It depends what is your intent with "accumulation".
* A) There was an accumulation of sand over time on the mountain
* B) There was an accumulation of fish by the fishermen.
* C) See http://www.perrymarshallspeaks.com and http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/
for the pattern - design distinction.

A- is a pattern and B- is a design. You either have patterns or
designs. There is no intent behind a pattern but a design always has
an intent. "selection" implies a choice 99% of the time as per the
"selection of rocks" example.

== principle of divergence ==
To answer the question: What is the principle of Divergence or more
specific the difference between the concept Darwin had with it and the
concept he had with Theory of Evolution? None: ToNS, ToE, selection,
divergence, Survival of the most suitable (Spencer)...., etc..... were
all different word fillers for the same tautological essence from
[[PatrickMatthew]]s: Those that didn't reproduce were less perfect
while those that did reproduce were more perfect or what is adapted is
adapted from [[JamesHutton]], Which Darwin restated as "....The
preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and the destruction
of those which weren't favorable......" , labeling it ToE which he
also called Theory of Natural selection 36 times, which was that the
dinosaurs died because there were less improved.

With the error continuing here at Harvard
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/wrangham-we-are-what-we-eat-and-what-we-cook/
",,,Wrangham says. “We are biologically adapted to cook food. It’s
part of who we are and affects us in every way you can imagine:
biologically, anatomically, socially...” How did Wrangham deduce that
were are adapted to cook food other than noting we do cook food? He
might as well have said a rock is adapted at being a rock.

== What is the theory of evolution? ==
What is the difference between the concepts encoded with the word
"evolution" or "evolvere"(Latin) and the term "Theory of evolution"
and who is encoding for such a concept from what knowledge base? On
Wikipedia "Theory of evolution" redirects to the page marked
Evolution: Why? Who is the person that decided that the concept Darwin
encoded for with the word couplet "Theory of evolution" , used only
twice in OoS can't have a separate page nor be allowed to be quoted in
the main article of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution]. There are multiple concepts
from many authors (punk-eek, gradualism) who are encoding for
different ideas with the word "evolution". Why isn't there a separate
entry dealing with the concept Darwin had with the term "Theory of
gradual evolution" or "Theory of evolution". Gould's [[PunkEek]]
concept with "theory of evolution" differs from Darwin's concept with
"''Theory of gradual evolution''", used only once. Darwin objected to
"evolution" the word because back then it meant God was involved,
"evolution" appears only a few times in the book.

=== Natural selection as successful algorithm from patent filings ===
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6266654.html -
[[Patent5824312Selection]]
:"....Natural selection is the most successful algorithm known for
the generation of solutions to problems. Some philosophers of science
characterize the algorithm in quite general terms--the differential
reproduction of randomly generated successful variations--and assert
that it is the only solution-generating algorithm there can be....."

"...the differential reproduction of randomly generated successful
variations-...". Which rephrased reduces to: Successful variations
replicate. "replicate" and "successful" alludes to the same fact, it
says the same thing twice. Natural selection, differential , randomly
are word fillers obscuring the underlying Aristotelian tautological
fallacy.

Does this "most successful algorithm" function as some sort of
universal mechanism? Wouldn't such a mechanism be just as implausible
as a single differential equation explaining all of physics.

=== If natural selection is blind, why isn't it stupid? ===
[[KennethMiller]] said in his Youtube video concerning IC
that :"..... natural selection is blind......" But if
[[NaturalSelection]] is blind then why isn't it stupid? Only a
conscious being can be blind and stupid , the [[OxyMoron]]
[[NaturalSelection]] allows a duel meaning to be intended by a user.
If [[NaturalSelection]] is conscious then what is a
[[NaturalSelection]]? Is it a being, a monster with a tail and long
teeth on which is written [[NaturalSelection]] , what precisely is
[[KennethMiller]] trying to communicate. Did he use "blind" as a
metaphor and if so why are metaphors even being used because they are
a means to cloud a concept if the user doesn't know what he is trying
to say.

=== Notes on Darwin ===
* Darwin never said "reproductive success" nor "random mutations".
* He said chance was an "...incorrect expression....".
* RM surfaced in the journals around 1910, after Darwin died.
* He was the Beagle's gentlemanly companion, the doctor was the
naturalist, OoS is wrong on this account.
* In a letter to Asa Gray he noted how he deduced the principle of
"Descent with modification" between 1840 and 1850 , but it was a paper
by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d%27Omalius_d%27Halloy
in 1848 form which he got the term. The term DWM darwin labeled
Natural Selection.
* Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification
redirect to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution] ?
* Read http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?page=all
''The meaning of Life''

=== Openings definisie ===
[[AfrTautology]]
http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bespreking:Natuurlike_seleksie

".....Natuurlike seleksie is 'n verskynsel in die natuur waar sekere
voordelige evolusionêre kenmerke aan organismes deur middel van
voortplanting bó die kenmerke van ander organismes gekeur word, en dus
mettertyd 'n groterwordende prominentheid handhaaf....."

Buiten die feit dat die organismes meer prominent geword het, hoe was
hulle voordeligheid onafhanklig gemeet?
:Die enigste maatstaf is om te kyk watter skepsels dit gemaak het en
watter nie. Die inleiding is wel 'n bietjie lomp, maar ek kan nie nou
aan 'n beter bewoording dink nie. [[Gebruiker:Anrie|Anrie]]
([[Gebruikerbespreking:Anrie|kontak]]) 19:43, 5 Oktober 2009 (UTC)
::Dus die wat dit maak is voordelig en die wat dit nie maak nie is
sleg? Dit klink na n herformulering van Aristotle , sien
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology vir my notas in verband
hiermee.

: Buiten die feit dat hulle voordelig was, hoe was hulle prominentheid
gemeet? Kan jy sien dat "prominent" end "voordelig" dieselfde ding
twee keer se, wat dus die openings paragraaf onbetwisbaar maak, dit is
100% waterdig. Geen argument kan dit weerle nie wat dit n a logisie
falsheid maak. Dit is soos Darwin gese het:".... the truth of the
proposition cannot be disputed...". Maar dit is omdat Darwin sy konsep
so geformuleer het dat dit nie weerle kan word nie.

Tim Miller

unread,

Oct 31, 2009, 4:41:32 PM10/31/09

backspace wrote:
> Here is the latest update to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology:
> I am posting the full version because the page is getting vandalized.
>

Only by YOU, pinhead.

Free Lunch

unread,

Oct 31, 2009, 6:59:28 PM10/31/09

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:39:30 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>Here is the latest update to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology:
>I am posting the full version because the page is getting vandalized.

You are the vandal, you know.

...

backspace

unread,

Nov 15, 2009, 1:26:44 PM11/15/09

Further revisions to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology have
been done and this section added:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/DernavichInfidels

[[Category:TauTology]]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html

It is safe to say that the creation/evolution debate will not be
resolved anytime soon, and why should it? With the recent squabbles
in states throughout America, and the Dawkinses and Dembskis trading
haymakers with each other, things are only getting interesting.
Although I am merely a ringside observer, I am here to blow the
whistle on some apparent foul play which I have observed. It is up to
you to determine whether any of the participants should be
disqualified.

Let's go to the videotape...

Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin
defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently
self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive
dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they
were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe
could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to
comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No
sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they
reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be.
Let me give you examples.

Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent
Design theory ( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html
), utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume,
are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as
concepts, they defy common sense. He describes the natural world as
being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent
design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean
something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be
anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves. For the
very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than
that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a
plan, or an intellect. Each of the 21 definitions of "design" in
Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication. This is
not to say that random arrangements of things cannot be fantastically
complex; but if they are not purposefully complex then the word
"design" is incorrect. And "chaotic self-organizing" is a cluster of
words similar to "triangular circles": an excessively clever term to
describe something that can't possibly exist.

Other examples abound. A 1999 Time magazine cover story described
human evolution like it was General Motors, replacing the "clunkers"
with "new and improved" models: but doing it, of course, "blindly and
randomly." [1] Spare me, please, from blind and random
"improvements." In the most recent Free Inquiry (the magazine of the
Council for Secular Humanism), a scholar writes that both "Christians
and humanists agree on one thing: that humans are the most valuable
form of life on the planet," and that we are "the crown of earthly
creation." [2] That is precisely the one thing that a secular humanist
cannot call us: the crown of earthly creation. And valuable? Valuable
to whom, and on what basis? Another term which receives heavy usage
is "success," as in a "successful" species of lizard. But in order
for anything to be a success, it must have had some prior goal or
standard to fulfill. If we cannot confirm a purpose for which life is
supposed to have originated, how can we say anything is a success?
What if chickens were supposed to fly? What if beavers were supposed
to build A-frames? Naturalistically speaking, anything is successful
if it exists. Even a pebble is successful at being a pebble.

Finally, Robert Wright, in a New Yorker piece which dope-slaps Stephen
Jay Gould for being an unwitting ally to creationists, proves himself
to be a pretty solid creationist in his own right, as he goes on to
refer to natural selection as a "tireless engineer" with a "remarkable
knack for invention," even comparing it to a brain, indicative of a
higher purpose, which stacks the evolutionary deck and responds to
positive feedback.[3] Maybe evolution is a focus group!? Whether it
is by ignorance, defiance or the limits of our language, these Darwin
defenders liberally use terms which are not available to them, given
their presuppositions. One cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to
eat from it!

It brings up the problem I have always had with the term "natural
selection." We all know what it means, and I can't dispute it's
validity as a model for the differentiation of species. As a word
couplet, though, it is a grammatical gargoyle, like the term
"cybersex." If you were asked to describe what sex is, it probably
wouldn't sound like what happens when a lonely data-entry intern in
Baltimore starts typing his fantasies on a flat screen which, thanks
to thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable, is then read by someone in
Spokane. That situation has nothing to with the purposes or processes
of sex, as either God or nature intended it. The modifier is not true
to its object. Although the word "cyber-" is intended as a kind of
adjective, it comes dangerously close to totally redefining the word
which it is only supposed to modify. Contrarily, one could have a
blue book or a brown book, but in either case it is still a book. One
could make a hasty selection or a careful selection; it is still a
selection. But natural? A selection is a choice, and only a conscious
being that can process information can really make a choice, or even
input information into a system which will later result in a choice.
However, when the drying of a swamp puts a salamander out of
existence, that is an occurrence. We are comfortable with "natural
selection" as a phrase, because it conjures up images of Mother
Nature, or some cosmic Gepetto tinkering with his toys. As a
technical term, it is a misleading oxymoron.

I know what this proves. It proves absolutely nothing. This is
innocent embellishment, lazy usage, or a validation of Chomskyesque
theories about the inadequacy of language. One could say that a
critique based on language is aimed at the most inconsequential part
of any argument, like saying that Kierkegaard would have been more
compelling if he had typed in New Times Roman. However, a more
careful consideration will reveal that exactly the opposite is true,
at least in this case. The words used by modern-day Darwinists are not
a sidelight, they are symptomatic of a fissure in the structure of
their thought. I believe that when someone wrongly calls the
evolutionary process a purposeful "design," it is not because of
sloppy writing, but because of intentional and thoughtful writing. It
is because that is the only idea that will work. It is the only word
that will work. It is because there is something brilliant, something
awesome, and something significant about our world, and our instinct
is to want to know who gets credit for it. The impulse is innate and
proper. It is the decision to give credit to an abstract and
unauthored "process" which is out of sync.

Let me make the point in a more obvious way. Here are two written
accounts:

A. Two similar clusters of matter came into physical contact with
each other at a single point in space and time. One cluster
dominated, remaining intact; while the other began to break down into
its component elements.

B. A 26-year old man lost his life today in a violent and racially
motivated attack, according to Thompson County police. Reginald K.
Carter was at his desk when, according to eyewitness reports,
Zachariah Jones, a new employee at the Clark Center, entered the
building apparently carrying an illegally-obtained handgun. According
to several eyewitnesses, Jones immediately walked into Carter's
cubicle and shouted that "his kind should be eliminated from the
earth," before shooting him several times at point-blank range.

If asked where these two fictitious excerpts came from, most would say
that A was from a textbook or scientific journal, and probably
describes events observed under a microscope or in a laboratory. B
would be a typical example of newspaper journalism. Most people would
say that, of course, they are not talking about the same thing. But
could they be? Well, to the materialist, the answer is certainly
negative. To those who don't take their Darwinism decaffeinated, who
embrace it as a philosophy which excludes any non-natural explanations
for life's origins, the answer is absolutely. B perhaps wins on style
points, but the content is the same. Any outrage or emotion felt upon
reading the second excerpt would be a culturally conditioned response,
but not a proof that there had been anything "wrong" that had
happened. In this view, A is probably the most responsible account.
Nature, with its fittest members leading the way, marches on. I think
I would be correct in stating that many would disagree with, or be
offended by, that analysis. What I am not really sure of, and would
like explained to me, is why? What is in view is not so much of a
Missing Link, as much as a Missing Leap: the leap from the physical to
the metaphysical. Taken as a starting point, I have no problem with
quantitative assessments. They establish a baseline of knowledge for
us.

But what about life? Life is an elusive concept that cannot be
quantitatively assessed. As Stanley Jaki writes in his most recent
book. [4] Moreover, long before one takes up the evolution of life,
one is faced with a question of metaphysics whenever one registers
life. Life is not seen with physical eyes alone unless those eyes are
supplemented with the vision of the mind. No biologist contemptuous
of metaphysics can claim, if he is consistent, that he has observed
life, let alone its evolution. We then start to have an aesthetic
appreciation for the beauty and ingenuity of these life forms, and it
is not long before we get around to talking about abstract concepts
such as rights, justice, and equality, and assigning some species -
namely, us - some kind of moral responsibilities for them, none of
which can be measured according to scientific methods.

I think it is safely assumed by all parties that, although we have
some physical and behavioral characteristics in common, humans are
significantly more intelligent and sophisticated than our mammal
friends, and possessed of a vastly different consciousness. For
whatever reason, we are unique enough to make us "special." The
problem is that the physical sciences cannot explain how, much less
why, this consciousness emerged. And a bigger problem is the
strangeness of our consciousness: abstract self-doubt, philosophical
curiosity, existential despair. How does an intense awareness of my
accidental existence better equip me for battle? Why do we consider
compassion for the sick to be a good thing when it can only give us a
disadvantage in our vicious eat-or-be-eaten world? Why would these
traits emerge so late in the game, when one would think evolution
would be turning us into refined, high-tech battle machines? We cannot
acquire a transcendent or "higher" purpose through evolution, any more
than a sine wave can develop separation anxiety. And yet many who
swear by the powers of Darwin and empiricism also cling,
hypocritically, to a quite unproven assumption that the human race is
somehow set apart, created for a glorious destiny. Just as
determinists argue undeterministically, scientists believe
unscientifically. The most serious offenders in this category have to
be the various minds behind the Humanist Manifesto, who roundly reject
the metaphysical even as they affirm it, by assumption, in their grand
prescriptions for humanity. This is called talking out of two sides
of the mouth. Now, biologically speaking, developing this trait would
be a great way for an organism to gain a tactical advantage in the
struggle for survival. Unfortunately, it also opens the creature up
for easy attack in life's intellectual jungles. These contradictory
assumptions met each other vividly in the theater of mainstream
culture last year, during the pop radio reign of "Bad Touch," the
Bloodhound Gang song. You know the song: it was the one with the
refrain of "You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals / So let's do
it like they do on the Discovery Channel." It was pure Darwinism for
the dance floor and became an instant dorm room classic, despite (or
most likely, because of) the fact that it was too explicit for the
kitsch it aspired to. The party music stopped, however, upon arrival
of Thornhill and Palmer's The Natural History of Rape, the book that
investigated whether rape was a genetically determined trait that
enabled humans to climb the evolutionary ladder. The book's research
was as swiftly refuted as The Bell Curve's. However, the white-hot
center of controversy surrounding this book was not the research, but
the inferences that might have been made from it: the fear that rape
could be rationalized, or even accepted, on a biological basis. The
science may have been bad, but the logic is faultless. Why can't a
chameleon's color change, a bat's sonar, and a man's sexual coercion
all be examples of successful evolutionary "design"? Given the
absence of any empirical alternative to social Darwinism, the
nonconsensual Discovery Channel bump-and-grind is a pretty educated
approach to sexual ethics. I repeat: one cannot deny the cake, and
then proceed to eat from it.

That, then, is why the language is confused: because the ideas are
confused, because the mind is confused. To the extent that our
Darwinians and humanists seek answers to humanity's dilemmas using the
natural sciences, they are absolutely on the right track. To the
extent that they reject the idea of a divine or supernatural creator
using the natural sciences, they are not only overstepping the
boundaries of their field, but they are plainly contradicted by their
language, their goals, and their lives. G.K. Chesterton, writing a
century ago, astutely observed this dichotomy in the modern mind when
he said that "the man of this school goes first to a political
meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were
beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific
meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts." [5] It is
precisely this incongruity which remains unaccounted for today. This
incongruity was raised to heights both humorous and sublime by noted
Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, writing an essay for the Atlantic
Monthly called "The Biological Basis of Morality." In it, Wilson
outlines the argument for his suspicion that morals, ethics, and
belief in the supernatural can all be written off to purely materially-
originating, evolutionary-guided brain circuitry, and that's that.
In the light of this, he suggests in his conclusion that evolutionary
history be "retold as poetry, " because it is more intrinsically grand
than any religious epic.[6] But if moral reasoning is just a lot of
brain matter in motion, where does that leave appreciation for poetry?
And seeing that poetry has a definite beginning and an end, as well as
an author and a purpose, isn't the evolutionary epic the very last
thing that could be told as poetry? Besides, who could possibly come
up with a rhyme for lepidoptera? If life is a drama, then it needs a
Bard; and we need to learn to acknowledge our cosmic Bard, just like
Alonso in the final act of The Tempest:

This is as strange a maze as e'er men trod,
And there is in this business more than nature
Was ever conduct of. Some oracle
Must rectify our knowledge.

1. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up From the Apes," Time
Magazine 154 no. 8, August 13, 1999.

2. Theodore Schick, Jr., "When Humanists Meet E.T.," Free Inquiry 20
no.3, Summer 2000, pp. 36-7.

3. Robert Wright, "The Accidental Creationist," The New Yorker, Dec.
30,
1999, pp. 56-65.

4. Stanley Jaki, The Limits of a Limitless Science, (Wilmington, DE:
ISI Books, 2000, p. 97).

5. G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, (NY: Image Books, 1990, pp 41-2).

6. E.O. Wilson, "The Biological Basis of Morality," The Atlantic
Monthly 281 no. 4, April 1998, pp. 53-70.

=== Response by Richard Carrier ===
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=89

On Darwinian Dissonance

{{{
I am sure feedback here will be furious and some perhaps excessively
hostile, but I want to make sure something calm and correct gets said.
First, I like this essay. As an analytical philosopher I am always
happy to see people calling for more rigor and clarity in the use of
terminology. And the mistakes you make, Mr. Dernavich, which I will
discuss below, are not so much your fault as that of the multifarious
writers you quote: they failed us by not ceing clear. I am sure even I
have done this on numerous occasions, and am always thankful when
given the chance to correct myself. Moreover, I don't think you chose
a biased and selective portion of writers: I think by and large your
sample accurately reflects the trends, and thus demonstrates the
obscurity and unhelpfulness of much that is said for natural
selection. In that respect, without your essay I would never have
written the following critique, and thus no progress on this matter
would have been made.

I could defend some of Pigliucci's obscure idioms but perhaps he would
prefer to do that himself. For example, "chaotic self-organizing" is
not a contradiction in terms, but that would not be apparent to anyone
who was not already versed in the basics of chaos theory and thus
understood things such as "strange attractors" and whatnot. But no one
should assume their readers have that background. And I certainly
won't defend the sloppy and prosaic quasi-hack journalistic writing of
periodicals like Time magazine. Instead, just the key issues that
everyone should know:

"Valuable to whom?" To us. Many secularists defend an objective
ethical system in which the fact that humans have value is true
irregardless of where we came from (evolution or otherwise). But that
isn't necessary. Subjectivism does not entail what its critics claim,
and is perfectly compatible with moral values being universally true.
It is not too hard to agree with the fact that value is mind-
dependent: you cannot have values without a valuer, and when we poll
human beings, after providing them with all the facts relevant to the
matter (and thus not listening to ignorant or misled people), 99%
would agree that humans are valuable and the best thing nature has
ever produced since the bananna. The other 1% are mainly comprised of
suicidally-murderous psychopaths. But the question of the nature and
basis for values is the philosophical field called metaethics (or just
"ethical theory"), and is not directly related to the issue of natural
selection. If you want to say that secularists cannot say these
things, then you are debating metaethics, not natural selection or
creation, and you might get pounded on that issue. Even though that
was the eventual thrust of your argument, the essays we have under
Morality and Atheism already collectively rebut your argument.

"If we cannot confirm a purpose for which life is supposed to have
originated, how can we say anything is a success?" Because life is its
own "purpose" in this sense: that is, if it can live (as in
replicate), then it is a success. If it cannot, then it is a failure.
Indeed, this is a self-fulfilling tautology: that which lives
reproduces. That which does not live does not reproduce. So this is
where life's basic blind "purpose" comes from: from the bare, mindless
fact that life reproduces. No intelligence is needed to make this so.
That is why so much of nature's products are so astonishingly absurd,
from the peacock to the kamakazee ant. Of course, this is all amply
explained in a good college-level textbook on evolution. But we cannot
expect so much as 5% of the population to have even seen one of those,
much less actually read it.

Damn the metaphors! Full speed ahead! I am not one to play Grinch to
those who enjoy the artistic use of language. Apt metaphors and
analogies can often convey meaning faster and deeper, and more
beautifully, than tedious descriptions. But you are right to worry
that this is unwise in the present hostile atomosphere, where, as in
politics, every word that can be taken out of context or
misinterpreted is potentially suicidal. But we should still be
intellectually charitable. The rule of intellectual charity is: if
there is any sense in which what a writer says can be understood that
is consistent with everything else he says, then odds are that is what
he meant. Creationists are not charitable people in this respect, and
so it is inept to expect them to be, but all reasonable people should
be charitable in this way, and that includes you and me. Thus, for
example, nature is in fact a "tireless engineer," in that she never
ceases to do her work (evolution is constant and unstoppable) and the
"work" we are singling out here is not, say, the weather (which is
equally tireless), but the production of a machinery of life, which
can be said to have been "engineered" (as in arranged and built) by
the three central forces of natural selection: reproduction, mutation,
and selection. None of the three forces involves or requires
intelligence, yet all three together produce wonderful machines. Of
course, this is what defenders of natural selection should be
explaining, and it is indeed what they try to communicate in books on
the subject. Dawkins can perhaps be excused for taking it for granted,
when speaking in a brief article, that any would-be critic of his
words will take the trouble to read his book on the issue first.

Is "natural selection" a "misleading oxymoron"? Is "metallic hue"?
Even though there might be no metal in it? Is "postage stamp" a
misleading oxymoron even though it is a sticker? Is "political party"
to be impugned for changing the basic meaning of party? After all,
drinks and chips and friendly snogging on the couch are not what a
political party is supposed to refer to, scandals notwithstanding. One
could list endless examples, from "hot dog"). Science is especially in
need of such constructions, from "somatic cell" to "power cell," from
"ecological niche" to "architectural niche," even terms that clearly
are oxymorons, like "centrifugal force" and "electron orbit."
Complaining about this sort of terminological confusion is
inappropriate: we need to educate the public on the proper, formal
meaning of the terms in their respective contexts, not corrupt
scientific vocabulary to suit popular ignorance.

Why this metaphor? You propose the answer "Because that is what is
really going on." I propose: "Because our brains weren't built any
other way." A great deal of work has been done lately showing how hard
it is for humans to think rationally and scientifically: rational and
scientific methods are unnatural and counter-intuitive. The only
reason we force ourselves against the grain to employ them is that
they work a hell of a lot better than the sort of thinking our brains
are actually built to do. This is shown quite clearly in books like
Alan Cromer's Uncommon Sense, Stuart Vyse's Believing in Magic,
Michael Shermer's How We Believe, and Stew Guthrie's Faces in the
Clouds, as well as a lot of recent papers in scientific journals on
the God Module. The point is: our consciousness developed as a means
to suss out the intentions of other thinking creatures, and thus to
seek out patterns that belie motives and plans and allow us to predict
the behavior of others like us. Even our pre-conscious brain
development was geared toward recognizing patterns and seeking design:
and it was safer to see design where it wasn't, than to miss it when
it was really there. Thus, our brains were built to err--but err in a
way that is more beneficial to our survival than erring in the other
direction.

With self-referential consciousness we can now identify and correct
these errors, but it is uphill work. And we will never be able to
shake the fact that our brains are still built a certain way and thus
will always be readier to understand things when couched in certain
primitive metaphors. For instance, it has been shown that people
remember and learn better when they are told an interesting story that
contains the key material, than if the key material is meticulously
explained to them in a rationally-organized lecture. That is not very
efficient, but it's the way we are, and complaining about it is an
exercise in futility. Thus, do not begrudge humans who understand more
easily what nature does by drawing analogies from human life: a storm
is "fierce," a winter is "cruel," the stock market is a "bear,"
electricity "seeks" a path of least resistance. Does any of this
entail that we think there is a thinking, feeling intelligence behind
these things? No. Is there any better way to express them? Not really.
It could be done, but it would require a dull and laborious
paraphrasis--which goes against the point of language in the first
place: the rapid and efficient communication of ideas.

"B perhaps wins on style points, but the content is the same [as A]."
Incorrect. You have violated the law of excluded middle: A contains B
as a possible case, but it also contains countless other entirely
different cases, and therefore A is a genus and B is a species. This
means they are not equivalent and thus do not share all the same
content any more than "mammal" and "mouse" share the same content. One
would be ill advised to think that "mammal" means "mouse," for an
elephant might be around the corner. And one cannot say "I understand
what a mammal is, therefore I know what an elephant is." He who
understands A does not understand B, only a fractional part of B, and
this fact invalidates your use of A and B in your analysis, and in
fact this error plagues and thus totally destroys the rest of your
argument about morality and values.

The problem is that the physical sciences cannot explain how, much
less why, this consciousness emerged. Anyone who says "Science cannot
explain..." had better wash their foot--for they will have to put it
in their mouth eventually. Indeed, a great deal of work has been done
on this very question in just the last ten years, and several
comprehensive theoretical research programs have been proposed (I
count at least ten books on the subject going to print this year; but
for past work see the forthcoming Essential Sources in the Scientific
Study of Consciousness). Indeed, your analysis would be much better
informed if you had read even one of them, or something in
evolutionary psychology. For example:

And a bigger problem is the strangeness of our consciousness: abstract
self-doubt, philosophical curiosity, existential despair. How does an
intense awareness of my accidental existence better equip me for
battle? As has been well-argued in hundreds of books on the subject in
the last two decades, consciousness serves the function of social
awareness, not combat. Indeed, a pack of wolves can tactically
outsmart the average human, and the strategic genius of ant colonies
is much to be admired. Instead, by being able to model human
perception and self-awareness in ourselves, we are able to model the
thought processes of others and thus predict their interests and
behavior with astonishing accuracy. Once this tool met up with
language, the brain became a powerhouse for the communication of
acquired characteristics (and as anyone versed in the dispute between
Lemarckian and Darwinian evolution would know, that is a vast
advantage over the ordinary processes of inheriting characteristics
which are painfully slow).

Everything peculiar about human thought is the byproduct of these
developments, and others like them, whether the byproduct is useful or
not (and nature wouldn't know--mere life or death decides, and
mercilessly). For every advantage comes at a price. Just think how
much energy we waste feeding this absurdly huge brain of ours. The
peacock's feathers are a liability in battle and flight, but the
advantage in winning a mate outweighs that in terms of differential
reproductive success. The kamakazee ant commits suicide so that its
colony can prosper--and thus, in effect, it ensures the survival of
those genes it shares with its fellow ants that live as a result of
its altruistic death. And so on. None of nature's homoncula are
perfect, and most, if we were to attribute them to an intelligent
creator, would be insane (the platypuss comes to mind, or the guinea
worm). Nature's creations are ad hoc, sometimes ridiculous, yet they
succeed because they nevertheless work, and nothing better was hit
upon, and that is what makes her blind.

In the end, misled by your fallacious exclusion of the middle term,
you commit the nefarious "A is just a B" fallacy, which has bred such
embarassing arguments like "An animal is just a clump of cells, cells
can't walk, therefore animals can't walk." You, likewise, argue that
there is an incongruity between scientific knowledge and humanist
values because "moral reasoning is just a lot of brain matter in
motion," and since brain matter in motion can't produce a justified
set of moral values, therefore there is no justified set of moral
values. This is the same fallacy as the animals can't walk example.
Thus, you fell victim to the very confusion you attributed to
scientific humanists.
}}}

==== Richard Carrier quotes ====
Thus, for example, nature is in fact a "tireless engineer," in that
she never ceases to do her work (evolution is constant and
unstoppable) and the "work" we are singling out here is not, say, the
weather (which is equally tireless), but the production of a machinery
of life, which can be said to have been "engineered" (as in arranged
and built) by the three central forces of natural selection:
reproduction, mutation, and selection. None of the three forces
involves or requires intelligence, yet all three together produce
wonderful machines.

=== Dernavich replies ===
{{{
Thanks for the comments. I hope that progress has been made, and not
just a lot of vitriolic vein-popping, as is sometimes the case. I have
appreciated all of the feedback, criticism included, that has been
posted thus far. On most of the above points, I will leave you to the
last word. I do, however, have one bone to pick which is vital and
foundational, and which cuts across the grain of almost all of the
arguments.

You say that metaethics is not directly related to natural selection.
I beg to differ! If all that we are is a function of natural
selection, then how can it not be? How can we separate ourselves from
the processes of our own development to analyze that development? When
a person has a panic attack, a heart attack, or an aneurysm, he cannot
coolly remove himself from it, and figure out how to cure himself. He
is a part of the attack. Same with a dream. We cannot remove our minds
from the dream to take notes on it and analyze it. Our brains, and
therefore our thoughts, are a direct result of the forces and
processes which formed it and govern it. So if everything in the
cosmos, including our humble selves, is a result of nothing more than
unconscious forces working against physical substances, then how are
we any different? This consciousness you speak of is not "awareness,"
as we understand it, it is just a word that describes how the
impersonal forces act upon one certain type of organism. "Awareness,"
given the above presuppositions, is a delusion - a beneficial one in
terms of survival, but still a delusion. And we are not really
debating right now, at least not in the ordinary sense of "debate,"
because there would be no such thing as independent thought.

One of the most tired ideas which is consistently repeated by
evolutionists is that religious belief is only the outworking of the
self-preservation mechanism; a psychological phenomena that allows
creatures to somehow achieve a sense of self-worth and purpose. Wilson
is one of the chief offenders in this category, and that is why I
mentioned him. It never occurs to anyone that the secularist opinion,
that humans are intrinsically special and should agree on some
universal moral values, could be explained away by the same logic.
Indeed, it makes even more sense. You say that there is 99% agreement
among humans that we are valuable: of course there is! A successful
species like ourselves could not get far thinking that we were moss to
be trampled. But that is only animal self-preservation. You said as
much yourself: "our brains were built to err--but err in a way that is
more beneficial to our survival than erring in the other direction."
But it proves nothing, and it especially does not solve the question
of if there is any higher reason, outside of the selfish instinct
toward self-preservation, that we are so special, or should observe
ethics or morals of any kind.

We are conscious beings, and we are unique creatures in the universe.
These things are assumed in the minds of secular Darwinists, because
it appears implicitly and explicitly in their writing. The problem is,
only the possibility of the existence of an intelligent, conscious
designer can account for them. People don't need to come up with new
words. They need to come up with new thoughts.
}}}

backspace

unread,

Nov 15, 2009, 1:28:42 PM11/15/09

And here is the revision to the main article with new ideas added:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

== concept ==
(http://bit.ly/ds42t)

A tautology is the label for ''saying the same thing twice'' and what
this means can't be separated from the [[Pragmatics]] of the
individual.
Conclusions as to what it means to formulate the same concept twice
will generally eminate from whomever is arbitrating the proper parsing
of the words at issue. An element of interpersonal power-dynamics can
infuse itself into definitional debates. The editor can label
something a tautology so as to better dismiss the opposition's
position if it conflicts with his [[world view]]. Saying the same
thing twice takes on varying nuances either fallacious, logically
valid or poetic:
* Rhetoric, propositions.

* Language verbosity, expressions, poetry, language redundancy.
* Logical validity.
* Logically valid but unintended and thus a Logical Tautology -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic).
* Repetition of the same idea in different words. (http://
tautology.net/)
* In logic, a tautology is a proposition that is already true by
definition, not because of any logical deduction.
* Use of an extra word in a phrase or sentence which unnecessarily
repeats an idea, eg the annual poetry festival is staged every year.
* A sentence is said to be a tautology if it cannot be false.

A rhetorical tautology is defined as a series of statements that
comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a
way that the truth of the propositions are guaranteed or that the
'''truth of the propositions cannot be disputed''' by defining a term
in terms of another self referentially: It says the same thing twice
or repeats the same concept using words or terms in the ''synonymous''
sense. The argument is formulated in such a way that it cannot be
refuted. A story in the New York Times isn't confirmed by reading it
twice and neither is a [[world view]] confirmed by expressing it

multiple ways.

does, hence the equation '''F=MA''' isn't a tautology. The second law
relates an external influence, the force, to the acceleration of an
object in space and time, it isn't a tautological statement, force,
mass, and acceleration are independently measurable and we have
prescribed ways of doing these measurements.

'''X=X''' could be a logical validity,''mathematical redundancy'' or a
logical tautology depending on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
or motive behind it. There is no language without a motive. A
[[Truism]] is true by definition, it is not a tautology but can be
reformulated in a tautological manner in order to disguise the
truistic nature of the original statement and underlying [[Premise]]s.
The dividing line between a [[Truism]] and an observation is
[[Pragmatics]]. Neither is [[Begging the question]] a tautology. A
[[Truism]] is embedded inside an argument in an attempt to disguise
that the conclusion based on the argument's core is a [[Non_sequitur_
(logic) Non sequitur (logic)]]. ''The sun shines'' is an observation,
it becomes a [[Truism]] if used in an argument to influence the hearer
to come to a conclusion which doesn't follow logically from the core
of the argument.

The truism in such a case should be considered a [http:///index.php?

title=Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)&action=edit&redlink=1 Red

herring (logical fallacy)] an irrelevant piece of trivia employed as a

rhetorical [[smoke screen]]. Tautologies, [[CircularReasoning]] and

[[Truism]]s are used together as a rhetorical device in a deceptive
attempt to argue for a view if it isn't possible to independently
establish the real reason for the viewpoint elsewhere. The seeming
complexity of such an argument might comes across as well reasoned
but is really just the articulation of a [[world view]] that can't be
[[Falsified]].

The argument is formulated in such a way that it cannot be refuted.
Furthermore the underlying [[Premise]] and [[word view]] of the

formulator must be questioned because it might contain circularity,
[[FalseDichotomies]],[[RetrospectiveSpecification]] with the tautology

an attempt to disguise these underlying [[Logical fallacies]]. What he
assumes to be the truth will cast a different light on the sentence
then another person with a different [[world view]] because there is
no language without a motive and no sentence has a single true
meaning, the sentence must be interpreted within the persons
[[Pragmatics]]. If a cat walked over a keyboard and by random luck
typed out the sentence it would have no meaning.

isn't saying the same thing twice. Gould's [[PunkEek]] confuses the
issue, it deals with a perception of scale but doesn't escape the
circularity of the argument.

== Is a tautology true by definition? ==
Is a tautology defined as something which is true by definition? This
depends what is meant with ''"tautology"'', no word has a single true

meaning as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics. There are a
range of concepts for which one word will not suffice particularly in

realization that [[SurvivalOfTheFittest]] by Treviranus, Buffon and

Spencer was a tautological proposition. See [[JohnWilkins]] for his
post on this issue. There are threads by Wilkins on Usenet
talk.origins dealing with the http://www.talkorigins.org tautology
article that he wrote where he stated that the article is out of date,
and needs to be rewritten.

In English the context or [[Pragmatics]] with the word "love"

determines what is meant by signal sender to signal receiver. The Neo-
Aristotelians, -Neo-Empedoclians (not Evolutionists , a word coined by

Darwin in OoS) are exploiting the English language to hide what they

mean by words such as selection(who did the selecting?),modification
(who did the modifying) accumulation, evolution etc: What will be ,
will be. Their [[Premise]] is the [[RetrospectiveSpecification]]
fallacy: A widely held premise is the multi-universe theory,out of

billions of possible universes we were the one that happened to be in
existence, but the sample space is actually two: Either we exist or we

don't.

The subtleties and nuances of what it means to say the same thing

twice can't be separated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
The editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
refuse to incorporate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics with it
due to their Aristotelian, Empedoclian and Epicurian [[world view]].
This [[world view]] of atoms fighting on another with the best atom
surviving have been retold for modern man as the battle between
organisms, resulting in an unfalsisfiable tale because if the dingbat
won instead of the wombat we would be told the same story.

== Tautologies from Aristotle, Empedocles, James Hutton and Henry F.
Osborn ==

:Empedocles- "...Those animals perished immediately, for they were not
fitted to live, and only those random coalitions of elements which
were fittest to live survived, and continue to survive today...."
http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/AncientGreeks/Section12.html

:"From the Greeks to Darwin" by [[HenryFairfieldOsborn ]] " ... all
the faulty ...disappeared, and that those that survived.... had the
power of .....perpetuating themselves....." ''

:(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2)

, it cannot be refuted and is thus a [[LogicalFallacy]]. His

tautology reduces to: The good one lived, the bad one died. It is
rooted in ancient mythology , the battle between Gods and Seemonsters,
which became the battle between good and bad atoms from the Atomists
(600BC), which today is formulated by Dawkins as: ".....the good gene

survived, the bad gene died...." in the light of

[[OriginOfSpeciesAsMyth]] - http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth.
The mythology is extended to anything in existence,matter abstract
ideas, and as new discoveries are made through the ages, the myth is
retold by the secular priesthood and incorporated by the religious
priesthood.

[[Non_sequitur_(logic) Non sequitur (logic)]]. These tautologies and
battle-between-atoms-and-organisms myth was originally from Empedocles
600B.C, reformulated and expanded through the centuries by Aristotle,
Democritus, Epicurus,....Darwin right up to our modern era by
[[JohnWilkins]], Dawkins etc who all basically said the same thing:
The good live , the bad die. But from such a banality each propogates
different [[world view]]s, Deism, Atheism, Pantheism and Theism. None
of them realized that their [[world view]] didn't logically follow
from the Empedocles tautology. It was't really Darwin that was
responsible for the Hitler and Stalin but Empedocles, it seems.

:[[CharlesKingsley]] in a letter dated 1863 to [[FrederickMaurice]] he

authors today mean with "selection" : volition or non-volition?

[[NaturalSelection]] is an [[OxyMoron]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Oxymoron) a contradiction in terms. See http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2808

During the 19th Tremaux (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/
00003806/01/Tremaux-on-species.pdf) differed with the belief held then

that the mind is an illusion. If a person says: "My mind is an
illusion created by the brain" then that very sentence itself is an
illusion because it was formulated by his mind. In addition why should
one believe a word he says if he thinks everything he says is the
result of illusions in his head?

== Example of a tautological proposition ==
:''The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving

extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy.'' S.J. Gould & N.

=== Wikipedia natural selection Nov.2009 revision ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
"....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that

make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully
reproduce become more common in a population over successive
generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

:'''rephrase''':The process by which.... traits that make it more
likely for an organism to .... reproduce become more common in a

population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of
evolution...."

:'''rephrase''':The ... traits that make it more likely for an
organism to .... reproduce become more common in a population over

successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

:'''rephrase''':The ... traits that .....enables .... reproduction
become more common in a population................ It is a key
mechanism of evolution...."
:'''rephrase''':''The traits that enables reproduction, become more
common.''

"Enables" and "more common" are a play with words that alludes to the
same fact: It says the same thing twice. The "truth of the proposition
cannot be disputed"(Darwin's exact words), there is no way to falsify
or test this. How could it possibly be incorrect. We are told that
certain traits became more common. But why did they become more
common?
:Ans: Because the traits were enabling. But obviously the traits were
"enabling" or they wouldn't have become more common now would they?
It is the same tautological essence form OoS where Darwin explained
that the dinosaurs went extinct because they were "less improved"-
which is an irrefutable proposition.

Over at http://creationmuseum.org/ AIG is adding to the confusio by
not comprehending that this tautology was ad-hocly associated with
"natural means of selection" from [[PatrickMatthew]]s, an arbitrary
choice of words. Darwin, Aristotle, Epicurus, [[EmpeDocles]] ,
[[JamesHutton]] and Patrick Matthews tautology, if labeled Ninja
Turtles wouldn't make a turtle putting on a ninja suite a tautology.
No sentence or term has a single true meaning. Only an argument
containing a motive from some individual can be a tautology, such an
argument might contain the term [[NaturalSelection]], but if the
person doesn't define what he means with NS his argument isn't even
wrong.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
have removed the section that "natural selection is a tautology"
shouldn't be used. I agree because getting naturaled has nothing to do
with Aristotle's explanation of everything past, present and future.
But then again it isn't defined what Ken Ham means with natural
selection.

=== Where did matter come from ? ===
Neo-Aristotelians would say that "evolution" doesn't deal with this,
which is an appeal to [[AbstractAuthority]]: Mr.Evoluton, Mr.Science
and Mr.Religion don't exist, they don't say anything neither do they
inhabit separate domains a mistake Gould makes with his NOMA. Only a
conscious being can say something or not deal with something, be
religious or materialistic. The Neo-Empedoclians don't wish to deal
with the question because the of the notion that their spiritual
leader had about "atoms fighting each other". Empedoclian tautological
thinking infused into our science, culture religion and politics. The
entire premise of our society at large pivots on a battle-for-survival
myth formulated in such a way that it ''cannot be disputed''(Darwin's
term). The mythology was arbitrarily associated with selection,
adaptation , words given the atheistic premises of most isn't
available to them as per [[DernavichInfidels]]

An expression (as opposed to an assertion) is considered tautological
if it contains redundant information. For example, "to return back
again" is
tautological because the sense of "back again" is already fully
contained within the word "return", and so is redundant.

In the context of above and paraphrasing [[JerryFodor]]: What then is

the intended meaning of : natural,selection, [[FitNess]],

genotype,phenotype, [[FitnessLandscapes]], [[EcologicalNiches]],
evolution, evolutionary, [[DarWinism]],[[AdapTation]], [[AlleLe]],
[[DarWinian]] , [[random natural selection]], [[non-random natural

selection]], [[random design]], [[non-random design]] ? To answer the

question we must be told who is the individual using the terms, from
what time era and knowledge.

== Darwin on propositions which cannot be disputed ==
There are key passages where Darwin reformulated [[PatrickMatthew]]s,

[[JamesHutton]], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d%27Omalius_d%27Halloy,
Epicurus, Democritus, Spencer and Aristotle labeling their concept

reflects Aristotle and Epicurus, Democritus underlying philosophy :
What happens, happens.

these paragraphs ? The 2008 one had "Genes", which Darwin and

Aristotle didn't know about. Why was genes removed in the 2009
revision, it is like imagine somebody removes the word "Newton" in a
revision of the gravity article.

== Democritus ==
From [[JohnTyndall]] - http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A12&pageseq=1

''"....That great enigma, 'the exquisite adaptation of one part of an
organism to another part, and to the conditions of life,' more
especially the construction of the human body, Democritus made no
attempt to solve. Empedocles, a man of more fiery and poetic nature,
introduced the notion of love and hate among the atoms to account for,
their combination and separation. Noticing this gap in the doctrine of
Democritus, he struck in with the penetrating thought, linked,
however, with some wild speculation, that it lay in the very nature of
those combinations which were suited to their ends (in other words, in
harmony with their environment) to maintain themselves, while unfit
combinations, having no proper habitat, must rapidly disappear. Thus
more than 2,000 years ago the doctrine of the 'survival of the
fittest,' which in our day, not on the basis of vague conjecture, but
of positive knowledge, has been raised to such extraordinary
significance, had received at all events partial enunciation.3..."''

=== rephrase ===
Democritus struck with the penetrating thought ..... that it lay in

the very nature of those combinations which were ...... in harmony
with their environment... to maintain themselves, while unfit
combinations disappear.
Thus more than 2,000 years ago the doctrine of the 'survival of the
fittest,'......... has been raised to significance....,

=== rephrase ===
Democritus struck with the penetrating thought ..... that those in

harmony with their environment maintained themselves, while the unfit
combinations disappear.
Thus more than 2,000 years ago the doctrine of the 'survival of the
fittest was has been raised to significance.

=== rephrase for tautological essence ===
''Those in harmony maintained themselves, while the unfit disappear.
'' This proposition cannot be disputed hence is a logical fallacy. It

reflects Aristotle philosophy : What happens, happens.
See '''Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity''' -
http://www.amazon.com/Creationism-Critics-Antiquity-Classical-Lectures/dp/0520260066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228971065&sr=1-1

== Is survival of the fittest a tautology ? ==
Spencer got [[SurvivalOfTheFittest]] from Treviranus, Buffon.
Depends on who says SoF and in what context with what background

isn't always used in "what happens happens" sense as per http://bit.ly/19lJrY.

The examples JH gave are in the sense of 1) - what will be, will be.
The problem is that it isn't always clear in what context "selection"
is being used or why it is being used at all because in 99% of cases
"selectus or selection" is used to convey the concept of volition. Who
did the selecting? - nobody then why are transmutationists using
selection.
:'''Sam wrote''': ''"...Get a jar of peanuts. Close your eyes and
reach into the jar, selecting a peanut. You have now randomly selected
a peanut! Don't they have bingo where you live? Or the lottery?..."''
which was addressed here http://bit.ly/19lJrY

== accumulation ==
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51836&p=1171619#p1171619

the main article of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution. There are

multiple concepts from many authors (punk-eek, gradualism) who are
encoding for different ideas with the word "evolution". Why isn't
there a separate entry dealing with the concept Darwin had with the
term "Theory of gradual evolution" or "Theory of evolution". Gould's
[[PunkEek]] concept with "theory of evolution" differs from Darwin's
concept with "''Theory of gradual evolution''", used only once. Darwin
objected to "evolution" the word because back then it meant God was
involved, "evolution" appears only a few times in the book.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php
doesn't say what exactly is the ToE, what he is refuting isn't clear.

=== If natural selection is blind, why isn't it stupid? ===
[[KennethMiller]] said in his Youtube video concerning IC that :".....

natural selection is blind......" But if [[NaturalSelection]] is blind
then why isn't it stupid? Only a conscious being can be blind and
stupid , the [[OxyMoron]] [[NaturalSelection]] allows a duel meaning
to be intended by a user. If [[NaturalSelection]] is conscious then
what is a [[NaturalSelection]]? Is it a being, a monster with a tail
and long teeth on which is written [[NaturalSelection]] , what
precisely is [[KennethMiller]] trying to communicate. Did he use
"blind" as a metaphor and if so why are metaphors even being used
because they are a means to cloud a concept if the user doesn't know

what he is trying to say. Miller is wielding the term Natural
Selection as some sort of universal mechanism which would make it just

as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of

physics, depending though on what he defines as a Natural selection.

redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ?

* Read http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?page=all
''The meaning of Life''

=== W3FH ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c69e53509969c6b2
'''Atheist Bob and scientist by trade: '''
"...the concept of 'volition' is absent in science. again you prove my
point. you insist on analyzing 21st century science with
language from hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. science did
not exist then. the concepts we think of in science started to be
structured in the 16th and 17th century. creationism is rooted in a
time before this and so can not understand, nor express, these ideas.
That's why your comments are useless except for, perhaps, archival
purposes. You yourself are, in a sense, a transitional...a living
linguistic fossil caught in amber...."

Bob is creating his own language reality based on the belief that his
mind consists of illusions, created by the atoms banging together in
his head. If all consciousness, all thought and language is
ultimately the result of atoms spinning in our heads then we can't
believe a word we say or think because if the atoms spin in a
different direction, Bob might argue that he is a boiled egg.
Providing a well reasoned description(not science, science isn't
defined) of a phenomena means it at least can be somewhat defined, but
Life itself within the materialist [[world view]] isn't defined as
Cleland(http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?
page=all). The very thing that atheists are: Alive, they can't
define, all their talk about empiricism , "scientific" are hyperbole
used for its rhetorical effect in affirming their [[world view]]. The
very word "Biology" meaning either 'study of life(what is life?)' or
just 'life' depending on the context isn't available to them. And
neither should "selection(who did the selecting?)", "evolution(what
made progress?)", "descent with modification(who did the
modifying?)".

=== Ken Ham and the EU "believe" in natural selection ===
Both Ken Ham and the EU believe in natural selection. Are they talking
about the same thing?

=== Openings definisie ===
[[AfrTautology]]
http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bespreking:Natuurlike_seleksie

=== Links ===
[[AristotleTautological]]

backspace

unread,

Nov 24, 2009, 12:30:20 PM11/24/09

On Nov 15, 8:28 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And here is the revision to the main article with new ideas added:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

Here is another revision to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology.
The page is being vandalized , revert it to TongueSpeaker for correct
version:

[[TableOfContents]]

== concept ==
(http://bit.ly/ds42t)
A tautology is the label for ''saying the same thing twice'' and what
this means can't be separated from the [[Pragmatics]] of the
individual.
Conclusions as to what it means to formulate the same concept twice
will generally eminate from whomever is arbitrating the proper parsing
of the words at issue. An element of interpersonal power-dynamics can
infuse itself into definitional debates. The editor can label
something a tautology so as to better dismiss the opposition's
position if it conflicts with his [[world view]]. Saying the same
thing twice takes on varying nuances either fallacious, logically
valid or poetic:
* Rhetoric, propositions.
* Language verbosity, expressions, poetry, language redundancy.
* Logical validity.
* Logically valid but unintended and thus a Logical Tautology -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic).
* Repetition of the same idea in different words. (http://
tautology.net/)
* In logic, a tautology is a proposition that is already true by
definition, not because of any logical deduction.
* Use of an extra word in a phrase or sentence which unnecessarily
repeats an idea, eg the annual poetry festival is staged every year.

* An argument is said to be a tautology if it cannot be false.
* Some arguments are ''disguised tautologies'' formulated such that it
could be called ''Truthiness-Tautology'', it is formulated so that it
cannot be disputed, somewhere between a truism and tautology.

A rhetorical tautology is defined as a series of statements that
comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a
way that the truth of the propositions are guaranteed or that the
'''truth of the propositions cannot be disputed''' by defining a term
in terms of another self referentially: It says the same thing twice
or repeats the same concept using words or terms in the ''synonymous''
sense. The argument is formulated in such a way that it cannot be
refuted. A story in the New York Times isn't confirmed by reading it
twice and neither is a [[world view]] confirmed by expressing it
multiple ways.

be considered a [[LogicalFallacy]] and conclusions or [[world view]]s
derived from such as [[non-sequiturs]]. The [[world view]] very well
might be correct but doesn't follow logically from the argumentation
scheme employed.

object in space and time, it isn't a tautological statement,they are
independently measurable.

A tautology cannot be falsified simply because it is just a tautology.
All that can be done is to non verify it. A non verification is not
equivalent to a refutation. (http://groups.google.com/group/
sci.bio.evolution/browse_thread/thread/ea6cb92232f2e69c/
e49f197b34b00632?q=aristotle+OR+tautology#e49f197b34b00632)

circularity of the argument. A fossil of a Great Dane on Australia and
a poodle in the USA are of the same species. Many fossils found on
different continents are classified as separate species after tossing
a coin, from the bones themselves it can't be deduced. Their theory
don't allow for the same species to be discovered on different
continents and thus arbitrarily classify fossils which might be the
same species as different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus, Buffon and

* Hidden tautology or ''Truthiness-tautology'' - Fallacious.

The subtleties and nuances of what it means to say the same thing
twice can't be separated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
The editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
refuse to incorporate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics with it
due to their Aristotelian, Empedoclian and Epicurian [[world view]].
This [[world view]] of atoms fighting on another with the best atom
surviving have been retold for modern man as the battle between
organisms, resulting in an unfalsisfiable tale because if the dingbat
won instead of the wombat we would be told the same story.

== Tautologies from Aristotle, Empedocles, James Hutton and Henry F.
Osborn ==

"...the idea of the 'Survival of the Fittest' must actually be traced
back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ....", p.117 'From the

Greeks to Darwin'' by [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus and Buffon
coined SoF and Spencer lifted it from them.

:Empedocles-(600BC) "...Those animals perished immediately, for they

were not fitted to live, and only those random coalitions of elements
which were fittest to live survived, and continue to survive
today...." http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/AncientGreeks/Section12.html

:Aristotle - "....Things appropriately constituted were preserved and
things not appropriately constituted perished...."

:Democritus - "...Those in harmony maintained themselves, while the
unfit disappear... "

:Lucretius([[JohnTyndall]]-1874) - "...combats the notion that the
constitution of nature has been ... determined by '''Intelligent
Design'''. The inter-action of the atoms throughout infinite time
rendered all manner of combinations possible. Of these the ''fit''
ones persisted, while the ''unfit'' ones disappeared...."

:[[JamesHutton]] 1794- "...Those not adapted will perish, while those
adapted for the circumstances, will be best adapted. ..."

:[[PatrickMatthew]]s 1831- "...Those individuals who possess not the
requisite strength, fall without reproducing, their place being
occupied by the more perfect of their own kind...."

:Darwin OoS: 1860 - "...This preservation of favourable variations and
the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...."
and "..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation
(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection..."

:"From the Greeks to Darwin" by [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] " ... all the
faulty ...disappeared, and that those that survived.... had the power
of .....perpetuating themselves....." ''

:[[JohnWilkins]] - "...those that worked better were retained...."

From Empedocles to [[JohnWilkins]] it is the same tautology: The good
one survived, the bad one died and therefore whatever my [[world view]]
(whatever it might be) is correct.

:(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2)
'''OoS:'''".............So what hinders the different parts (of the
body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the
teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted
for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating
the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was
the '''result of accident'''. And in like manner as to other parts in
which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,
therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole)
happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these
were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished
and still perish.........."

([[JamesHutton]] said essentially the same thing but left out the
''result of accident'' part due to his Deistic [[world view]].)

[[PatrickMatthew]]s in all probability got his tautology from Hutton
and Darwin lifted "natural means of selection" from Matthew while
reading his book on the Beagle which most probably was required
reading - (http://probaway.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/darwins-
questionable-priority-over-thomas-matthew/)

Aristotle's passage reduces to: '''Things appropriately constituted
were preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished'''.

Or in other words: The good ones lived, the bad ones died , which
explains everything. ''Appropriately constituted'' and ''preserved''
are a synonymous play with words that alludes to the same fact but it
doesn't independently derive the actual reason something was
preserved. To identify the tautology take any of the synonymous terms
or words and formulate a question:
* Other than noting it was preserved how was it's constitutability
measured?
* Other than noting it wasn't constituted how was it's perishability
measured?

Wasn't constituted and perishable says the same thing twice, making
Aristotle's argument watertight, explaining everything
, it cannot be refuted and is thus a [[LogicalFallacy]]. His

tautology reduces to: The good(atom,idea,gene) one lived, the bad
(animal,atom,gene,idea) one died. It is rooted in ancient mythology ,
the battle between Gods and Seemonsters, Zeus, Apollo etc. which

became the battle between good and bad atoms from the
'''Atomists'''(600BC), which today is formulated by Dawkins as:
".....the good gene survived, the bad gene died...." in the light of
[[OriginOfSpeciesAsMyth]] - http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth.
The mythology is extended to anything in existence,matter abstract
ideas, and as new discoveries are made through the ages, the myth is
retold by the secular priesthood and incorporated by the religious

priesthood. ''Reproductive success'', ''genotype'',''fitness'', and
''phenotype'' etc. are semantic and stylistic ruses that enables the
myth to be retold by the Neo-Empedoclians within our reference frame
of genes as a [[CyberneticAbstraction]].

== From the Greeks to Darwin by Henry Osborn ==
p.246 "...The idea of Evolution, rooted in the cosmic evo- lution and
' movement ' of Heraclitus and Aristotle, has passed to the
progressive development and succession of life seen in Empedocles,
Aristotle, Bruno, Descartes, Goethe, and in the more concrete
mutability of species ' of Bacon, Leibnitz, Buffon, Lamarck, and St.
Hilaire.

The direct transition from the inorganic to the organic is seen to
have had a host of friends, nearly to the present time, including,
besides all the Greeks, Lucretius, Augustine, Maillet, Buffon, Erasmus
Darwin, Lamarck, Treviranus, Oken, and Chambers- Then we have seen the
difficulty of ' origin ' removed one step back by the ' pre-existent
germs ' of Anaxa- goras, revived by Maillet, Robinet, Diderot, and
Bonnet. Again, the rudiments of the monistic idea of the psychic
properties of all matter, foreshadowed by Empedocles, are seen revived
by Maupertuis and
Diderot. The difficulty of origin has been avoided by the assumption
of primordial minute masses, which we have seen developed from the '
soft germ ' of Aristotle, to the 'vesicles' and 'filaments' of Buffon,
Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Oken, and finally into our primordial
protoplasm.

To the inquiry : Where did life first appear ? we find the answer, '
in the sea,' given by Thales, Anaximander, and Maillet; 'between sea
and land,' is the answer of Anaximenes, Diogenes, Democritus, and
Oken; 'from the earth,' is the solitary reply of Lucretius. Now we are
too wise to answer it. For the succession of life we have followed the
' ascend- ing scale ' of Aristotle, Bruno, Leibnitz, and others, until
Buffon realized its inadequacy, and Lamarck substituted the simile of
the branching tree. Of man as the summit of the scale, and still in
process
of becoming more perfect in his endowments, we learn from Empedocles,
Aristotle, Robinet, Diderot, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and
Treviranus....|

'''THE SELECTIONISTS. '''

"....The modern theory of Natural Selection was ex- pressed first by
DR. W. C. WELLS, in 1813, then by St. Hilaire the elder, then by
Matthew, in 1831, and finally, with considerably less clearness, if
at all, by Naudin, in 1852. Darwin gives us references to the two
English writers. That of Wells is the first statement of the theory
of the survival, not simply of fittest organisms, as understood by
previous writers, such as Buffon and Treviranus, but of or- ganisms
surviving because of their possession of favourable variations in
single characters. Wells' paper, read before the Royal Society in
1813, was entitled, " An Account of a White Female, part of whose
Skin resembles that of a Negro " ; it was not published until iSiS. 1
He here recognizes the principle of Natural Selection, as applied to
the races of men, and to the explanation of the origin of single
characters....."

=== TAutology part ===
"....That of Wells is the first statement of the theory of the
survival, not simply of fittest organisms, as understood by previous
writers, such as Buffon and Treviranus, but of organisms surviving
because of their possession of favourable variations in single
characters....|

=== rephrase ===
The theory of the survival, is organisms surviving because of
favorable variations.

=== rephrase ===
"...Those that survived had favorable variations...." Obviously or
they would be dead.

=== Tautological expressions and propositions ===
The tautological expression (an unmarried bachelor) contains a
redundant word ("unmarried"), but has meaning and can be used to form
a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This
proposition is not a rhetorical tautology because the intent isn't to
deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily language verbosity.
The tautological proposition (all bachelors are unmarried) stated in a
class on formal logic theory on the other hand, gives us no
information that is not already contained in the definition of the
word "bachelor". The [[ Pragmatics]] or context with 'unmarried
bachelor' by the user would determine whether it is a
proposition,expression, logical validity, or language verbosity. In an
academic setting such as a journal propositions are put forward in an
attempt at deriving an independent explanation for an observation.
Tautologies in such a setting would be a tautological proposition and
unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting
such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech is
acceptable because of the [[Pragmatics] with it. The dividing line
between a tautological proposition and expression is [[Pragmatics]].

argument might contain the term [[NaturalSelection]], Roger rabbit or
Wizard of Oz.

=== The battle for survival myth from Lucretius ===
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A12&pageseq=1
"...p.7,8 Lucretius" The mechanical shock of the atoms being in his
view the all-sufficient cause of things, he combats the notion that
the constitution of nature has been in any way determined by
intelligent design. The inter-action of the atoms throughout infinite
time rendered all manner of combinations possible. Of these the fit
ones persisted, while the unfit ones disappeared. Not after sage
deliberation did the atoms station themselves in their right places,
nor..."

"...p.22
During the Middle Ages the doctrine of atoms had to all appearance
vanished from discussion. In all probability it held its ground among
sober-minded and thoughtful men, though neither the church nor the
world was prepared to hear of it with tolerance. Once, in the year
1348, it received distinct expression. But retraction by compulsion
immediately followed, and, thus discouraged, it slumbered till the
seventeenth century, when it was revived by a contemporary and friend
of Hobbes and Malmesbury, the orthodox Catholic provost of Digne,
Gassendi. But before stating his relation to the Epicurean doctrine,
it will be well to say a few words on the effect..."

Right up to our present day with "alleles" fighting it out amongst
themselves:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/deac2432776866c6/b7fce5490e4d08d6#b7fce5490e4d08d6
[[WilliamMorse]] wrote 2 July 2009:
"....Let me try to illustrate my thinking. The importance of a rate of
increase would be if we had two alleles competing to become fixed in a
population. Both of them are superior to the current predominant
allele, and the one with the greatest rate of increase is the one that
will become the new predominant allele. I don't think this describes
any common real world scenario...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus, Buffon.

backspace

unread,

Nov 26, 2009, 12:35:46 PM11/26/09

ON a point of logic:

1) X=X is a Logical validity depending on the context as explained.
2) '''Axioms''' aren't tautologies but ''logical validity's'', there
is nothing fallacious about axioms.

backspace

unread,

Dec 5, 2009, 2:55:22 PM12/5/09

Latest update to my tautology article at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology.
The page gets vandalized , revert to TongueSpeaker for latest
version:

* Rhetorical tautologies or tautological propositions are fallacious.
* Tautological expressions used for its stylistic effect in ''language
verbosity'', ''poetry'' and ''language redundancy'' aren't
fallacious.
* Logical validity such as x=x.
* '''Axioms''' aren't tautologies but ''logical validity's'', there is
nothing fallacious about axioms. Many attempt to downplay a fallacious
rhetorical tautology by equivocating between logical validity's and
argumentation schemes which are [[non-sequiturs]] which might be
called the fallacy of [[Innocence by association]]. Axioms such as
X=X, as an explanatory logically valid schema for mathematics is
valid. "What happens , happens" also says the same thing twice but as
part of an explanatory schema is fallacious.

* Logically valid but unintended and thus a Logical Tautology -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic).
* Repetition of the same idea in different words. (http://

tautology.net/) such as ''Creationism isn't science'', where a single
word essentially says the same thing twice. The word ''Science'' isn't
defined, but in the specific context that it was used the intention
was: ''Creationism isn't materialistic'', where the [[Pragmatics]]
with "science" was the materialist belief system. Creationism is
defined as not being materialistic thus the sentence really reduces
to: ''Creationism isn't materialistic because it isn't materialistic
and therefore materialism is the correct [[world view]]'' which says
the same thing twice making the conclusion a [[non-sequitur]]. Perhaps
materialism is the correct [[world view]] but not as a result of the
argumentation scheme.

* In logic, a tautology is a proposition that is already true by
definition, not because of any logical deduction.
* Use of an extra word in a phrase or sentence which unnecessarily
repeats an idea, eg the ''annual poetry festival is staged every

year'' but if used in a colloquial sense for its stylistic effect is a
''tautological expression'' and not a fallacy.

=== Wikipedia's Neo-Empedoclians ===

The subtleties and nuances of what it means to say the same thing

twice can't be separated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,
the context, time era, background knowledge and assumptions of the
user. The editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
don't incorporate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics with it due
to their Aristotelian, Empedoclian and Epicurian [[world view]]. This

[[world view]] of atoms fighting on another with the best atom
surviving have been retold for modern man as the battle between
organisms, resulting in an unfalsisfiable tale because if the dingbat
won instead of the wombat we would be told the same story.

Original the tale was the battle between the Gods and see-monsters,
narrated by the tribal wizard 5000 years ago to village peasants, in
return he got free food and didn't have to do back break work. The
myth was modified by Empedocles, Aristotle, Atomists, Democritus and
Lucretius etc.. as the battle between the atoms to explain the origin
of the universe due to their atheistic [[world view]]. If atoms became
established because the "good" atom outwitted the "bad" atom then the
story can't be falsified because if it was the other way around we
would be told the same thing. The fact that atoms do exist means thus
that one of the atoms had to "win the fight" so to speak but this
doesn't allow for a third option and presents a [[FalseDichotomy]].
[[JamesHutton]](1794), Darwin, Wells(1813), [[PatrickMatthew]]s(1836)
extended the Lucretius myth by having the "good" animal outwit the
bad, not knowing about genes. Our modern day secular priests extended
the myth by having the "good" Allele or gene outwit the "bad" allele,
as can be seen with the book "'''The Selfish Gene'''" by dawkins,
which is incorrect because genes are a [[CyberneticAbstraction]]. It
really is bringing a cowboys-and-indians fight for survival fantasy
world into science, where imagine that the existence of cowboys is
explained by telling a tale of how they killed all the Indians, which
raises the question where did the Indians and Cowboys come from in the
first place.

Genotype, phenotype,allele,evolution,selection,group selection,punk-
eek,gradualism and specifically the terms '''fitness''' and
'''reproductive success''' with its ''battle for survival'' overtones
are the word terms that enables the narration of the underlying
mythology, it doesn't explain the transition matrix that maps
polypeptide space into frog space for example: There is no math
because these terms aren't meant to provide a mechanistic description
but as a means for the Neo-Aristotelians to perpetuate the Lucretius
[[world view]] in their universities and science. They are intermixed
with mathematical equations but are superfluous to the actual
descriptions. For example the term "fitness landscape" might just as
well have been called "Conan banana landscape" or ''fitness
coefficient'' mathematical variables was arbitrarily called that in
population genetics but has no bearing on comprehending the actual
differential equations explaining inheritance.

''natural selection'' as used by the neo-Empedoclians when narrating
an exciting story about the fight for survival between the "alleles"
should be seen at the same level as "''expialidocis''" from Mary-
Poppins and "''kwabanga-dude!''" by Donatello from the Ninja Turtles:
As a stylistic device to spice up the story , not an actual attempt to
explain anything. For this reason "allele", "genotype" and "phenotype"
has no specific meaning whatsoever, nobody can point to the exact
definition of what an "allele" is nor who defined it.

For example Howard wrote:"...not all phenotypes are the result of
genotypes..." which is a sentence crafted not actually to explain
anything but as just one more addition of a rhetorical weapon in the
arsenal of the modern day Gandalfs to spice up their argumentation
scheme in the narration of their Empedoclian [[world view]].

=== Which version of natural selection with what concept? ===
Wilkins wrote:
"...The core of the criticism against natural selection is that it is
a logical tautology, which amounts to it being an a priori truth
(which most philosophers now consider a problematic notion at best,
anyway)...."

The problem with this sentence is Wilkins never defines to which
concept exactly he is referring to as used by which person. Only a
person can have a concept, [[PatrickMatthew]]s the originator of the
term "natural means of selection" had a very specific concept. The
term "natural selection" like the term "Ninja Turtles" isn't a concept
but a the semantic means of encoding the [[Pragmatics]] that a
specific user has. A Ninja turtle could be a ninja putting on a turtle
suite or a turtle putting on a ninja suite,it all depends on who uses
the semantics. We are for example told that evolution "happens in
populations but not individuals", the only thing we are not told is
who established it and whether it is established at all. All
scientific theories are always formally established.

:(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2)

'''OoS:'''".............So what hinders the different parts (of the
body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the
teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted
for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating
the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was
the '''result of accident'''. And in like manner as to other parts in
which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,
therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole)
happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these
were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished
and still perish.........."

([[JamesHutton]] said essentially the same thing but left out the
''result of accident'' part due to his Deistic [[world view]].)

Aristotle's passage reduces to: '''Things appropriately constituted
were preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished'''.

Wasn't constituted and perishable says the same thing twice, making
Aristotle's argument watertight, explaining everything

, it cannot be refuted and is thus a [[LogicalFallacy]]. His

'''Atomists'''(600BC), which today is formulated by Dawkins as:

".....the good gene survived, the bad gene died...." in the light of
[[OriginOfSpeciesAsMyth]] - http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth.

The mythology is extended to anything in existence,matter abstract
ideas, and as new discoveries are made through the ages, the myth is
retold by the secular priesthood and incorporated by the religious
priesthood. ''Reproductive success'', ''genotype'',''fitness'', and
''phenotype'' etc. are semantic and stylistic ruses that enables the
myth to be retold by the Neo-Empedoclians within our reference frame

of genes as a [[CyberneticAbstraction]]. If a cow was meant to produce
beer instead of milk would it still be a ''success''? For who is what
a success - see [[DernavichInfidels]] on this issue.

:[[CharlesKingsley]] in a letter dated 1863 to [[FrederickMaurice]] he

interpreted Oos as: ".. Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing
in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two
who hold out against Darwin are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges
as to fact or else by invoking the tedium theologium.... The state of
the scientific mind; they find that now they have got rid of an
interfering God - a master magician as I call it -- they have to
choose between the absolute '''empire of accident''' and a living,
immanent, ever-working God..."

:[[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug.

Today many use [[NaturalSelection]] in the volitional sense. NS like

meant by it differed like day contrasts with night, with the
oxymoronic nature of natural selection exacerbating such confusion.

During the 19th Tremaux (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/

00003806/01/Tremaux-on-species.pdf) differed with the belief held then
that the mind is an illusion. If a person says: "My mind is an
illusion created by the brain" then that very sentence itself is an
illusion because it was formulated by his mind. In addition why should
one believe a word he says if he thinks everything he says is the
result of illusions in his head?

== From the Greeks to Darwin by Henry Osborn ==

'''THE SELECTIONISTS. '''

=== Links ===
[[AristotleTautological]]

0 new messages