On 08/01/2012 21:57, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:57 am, backspace<
stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 12:59 am, Ray Martinez<
pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
For some strange reason two of my previous attempts to reply to this
post via google groups failed, let's see if this works
>>> Ray
>>
>> My position on natural selection is that it isn't a tautology: its not
>> even a sentence. Elliot Sober stated that only sentences can be
>> tautologies.
>>
>
> The comments above, in totality, say you agree with Sober (and nothing
> else).
>
> "Sober stated" could accurately be re-phrased as saying "Sober
> asserted." While he is a big time evo scholar his assertions are not
> necessarily and automatically fact (and I like Sober; one of the few
> likeable evos out there whom I respect).
Sober simply gives the standard definition of tautology, nothing
particularly interesting, most certainly not controversial and it has
nothing to do with biology.
Tautologies are defined as sentences that are true under all assignments
for their variables (and hence can be derived from the empty set of
premises) or, if you prefer the equivalent modal theoretical
definition, sentences that are true in all models. That means that only
sentences are candidates for tautologies, as only they have truth
values. This is standard stuff, you find it e.g. in Kleene's
Mathematical Logic, at paragraoh 17, or Copi's Symbolic Logic p. 55
The name for the corresponding concept when applied to terms is pleonasm
- examples are "black darkness" or "free gift".
In everyday language, tautology and pleonasm are often used
interchangeably, but technically speaking they are different things.
Sober just clarifies the usage in line with the technical meaning of the
terms, and backspace accept this clarification.
>
> First off, no one, to my knowledge, ever claimed that the "phrase
> itself" (natural selection) was tautologous.
The people Sober replied to do, or at least say they do - they might
mean something else.
>Rather, meaning or
> explanation is tautologous.
That does not make much sense, and is not even a sentence. Explanation
or meaning of what?
>
So Sober's assertion is not relevant. He
> is a selectionist, which means he has a motive to insulate the
> tautologous nature of natural selection.
>
> Your very many "re-phrasing" topics, over the years, Stephan, have
> significantly contributed to my position that natural selection
> epitomizes tautology (How you can void all the work you've done based
> on a skeletal assertion by one scholar is beyond me.)
Backspace has not changed his position one bit, he is now just trying to
use the correct technical vocabulary. "NS" can't possibly be a tautology
because it is of the wrong syntactic category. Rather, what people who
make that claim mean is that sentences using the term NS are
tautologous, or more specifically, certain statements within the ToE
that are not intended as definitions allegedly are.
Sober and following him backspace just clarify that issue which is
about terminology only, not about substance.
The fact that
> natural selection is a tautology does not mean that natural selection
> is false,
Indeed not. If it were a tautology, it would not just be true, but
necessarily be true.
but it is a negative conclusion contributing to
> falsification.
Even you should realise that this does not make sense. If the
theoretical statements using NS as term were tautologies, then
falsification would be impossible, that is the whole point. So it could
not possibly contribute to falsification, it would prevent falsification.
>I happen to agree with Gould 2002: natural selection,
> first and foremost, is a three component claim of logic. The
> tautologous refutation is a minor nail in the proverbial coffin.
>
>> The interested reader should google Selection + tautology or link to
>> my wiki where I have taken great effort to explain why 'natural
>> selection' as a term can't be a tautology.
>>
>>
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
>
> But no one is talking about the term itself being a tautology, only
> the meaning of the term.
That is at least a sentence, but again one that does not make sense.
Some philosophers of language postulate that in addition to words and
the objects they refer to , there is "meaning" that mediates between
them. OK, fair enough, but even then if you assume such a thing, a term
would be a pleonasm if and only if its meaning is pleonastic too, and a
sentence a tautology if and only if its meaning is tautologous too.
>
> Anyway : )
>
> Ray (anti-selectionist/anti-evolutionist-species immutabilist)
>