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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Stanford's tautologies on natural selection,preservation etc.

74 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 3:18:27 AM1/6/12
to
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/

''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''

rephrase:
The natural means of competitive selection(ns) is a process in which
the incremental proliferation of interactors cause the incremental
perpetuation of the replicators.

rephrase:
The natural means of competitive proliferation(ns)
results in incremental proliferation of interactors causing the
perpetuation of the replicators.

rephrase:
As the proliferators compete against others, those winning the process
of proliferation, perpetuate their line of proliferators

rephrase:
Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents in
incremental(differential) stages, leading eventually to the formation
of new species that can't -interbreed.

rephrase:
Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

finally:
Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

Perpetuate and proliferate in this case are synonyms that self-
referentially refer to the same fact, saying the same twice and thus a
rhetorical tautology. In other instances *dissimilar* terms are used
that self-referentially refer to the same fact. By saying the same
thing twice the authors are able to insert the non-sequitur
conclusion, namely that new species who can't interbreed arose in
small *differential* or *incremental* steps via this process of
Patrick Matthew's *natural means of competitive
selection,proliferation, preservation, perpetuation* etc. , which
Darwin contracted to natural selection , in order to avoid giving
credit to Matthew.

In Citizendium's ns article each paragraph is an exercise in saying
the same thing twice as discussed elsewhere.

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 4:08:33 AM1/6/12
to
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800, backspace wrote:

> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors cause
> the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced them”
> (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''

<snip rephraseology>

> finally:
> Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

The important detail your rephrasing process dropped is the very
important word "differentially", thus making the rest of your babble
worthless.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ You should all JUMP UP AND DOWN for TWO \
\ HOURS while I decide on a NEW CAREER!! /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 5:35:40 AM1/6/12
to
On Jan 6, 8:18�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is �a process in
> which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> them� (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> rephrase:
> The natural means of competitive selection(ns) is a �process in which
> the incremental proliferation of interactors cause the incremental
> perpetuation of the replicators.

Not a truth value preserving rephrase, it changes the empirical
content of the original.

> rephrase:
> The natural means of competitive proliferation(ns)
> results in incremental �proliferation of interactors causing the
> perpetuation of the replicators.
>
> rephrase:
> As the proliferators compete against others, those winning the process
> of proliferation, perpetuate their line of proliferators
>
> rephrase:
> Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents in
> incremental(differential) stages, leading eventually to the formation
> of new species that can't -interbreed.
>
> rephrase:
> Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.
>
> finally:
> Those that �proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

Arkalen

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 5:44:45 AM1/6/12
to
Good job backspace ! You have discovered that by incrementally changing
something several times you end up with something quite different from
the original ! Like with evolution !

That was what you were trying to show, right ?

--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.

deadrat

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 1:24:51 PM1/6/12
to
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> rephrase:
> The natural means of competitive selection(ns) is a process in which
> the incremental proliferation of interactors cause the incremental
> perpetuation of the replicators.
>
<snipped: ignorance/>

If you don't understand what "differential" means, that's fine. But why
not study the subject a little to find out?



Robert Weldon

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 2:36:11 PM1/6/12
to
"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74b17fe0-58ac-4626...@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>

-masturbation snipped

There is something wrong with how your brain is wired. You should get that
looked at, perhaps a mental health expert can fix you up.

Boikat

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 3:58:55 PM1/6/12
to
<snip>

This reminds me of the old joke about corporate policy:

*****************************
THE PLAN

In the beginning was The Plan.
And then came the assumptions.
And the assumptions were without merit.
And The Plan was without substance.

And darkness was upon the face of the workers.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, “It is
a crock of shit, and it stinketh.”

And the workers went unto their supervisors and said,
“It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor thereof.”

And the supervisors went unto their managers, saying, “It is
a container of excrement and it is very strong, such that
none may abide by it.”

And the managers went unto their directors, saying,
“It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong.”

And the directors went unto the VPs, saying unto them,
“It promotes growth and it is very powerful.”

And the VPs went unto the Prez, saying unto him, “This plan
will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company,
with powerful effects.”

And the Prez looked upon the plan, and saw that it was good.
And The Plan became Policy.
This is how shit happens!

**************************************

Boikat

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 4:19:23 PM1/6/12
to
Tee, Oh, Ah, Tee, Olo Gee, find out what it means to me
Sockit to me, sockit to me, sock it to me .....

I get tired (Just a little bit)
Keep on tryin' (Just a little bit)
You're runnin' out of foolin' (Just a little bit)
And I ain't lyin' (Just a little bit)


With apologies to Otis Redding.


David

backspace

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 5:22:03 PM1/6/12
to
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection has a section about
the directionality of selection. Is selection used literally or
metaphorically? If as metaphor, metaphor for what full sentence as
defined by which person.

jillery

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 6:18:09 PM1/6/12
to
Are these two my only choices?

backspace

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 7:12:05 PM1/6/12
to
On Jan 6, 11:18 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:22:03 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection has a section about
> >the directionality of selection. Is selection used literally or
> >metaphorically? If as metaphor, metaphor for what full sentence as
> >defined by which person.
>
> Are these two my only choices?

yes, either literally or metaphor. Dictionaries provide the literal
usage ,selection -> decision. But as metaphor , it could be used for
anything as I explained at :
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision

You can also google preferential and decision.

T Pagano

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 7:44:24 PM1/6/12
to
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
>''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
>which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
>cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
>them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''

Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity. And taken in
isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
standard way.

Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory. While
Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
central role (as far as I know). Instead Darwinists usually theorize
that it is the effects of "differential survival" and "differential
reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping. In Darwinian
evolution differential survival and differential reproduction refer to
individuals within some species grouping and NOT between different
species. Extinction refers to the complete loss of a species or at
the very least the complete loss of some species grouping within some
geographical boundary


With that in mind let's look at Hull's sentence:

differential extinction + the reproduction of those left "causes"
differential survival

Often differential extinction refers to the relative loss between
different species within a particular area. As such "differential
survival" must refer to the relative difference between species. Some
species become extinct and others survive. The survivors "survive" in
large part because they were able to reproduce. So "differential
extinction" + "the reproduction of those left" doesn't cause
"differential survival" it is simply another way of expressing the
same thing. Hence Hull's forumlation is tautologous and lacks any
content. Furthermore what relevence would differential extinction in
this case have to the darwinian process theorized to occur within a
species grouping?

Even if Hull uses "differential extinction" to refer to the relative
loss between geographically separated groups of the same species his
formulation is still tautologous.
<snip>


Regards,
T Pagano

John Harshman

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 9:12:21 PM1/6/12
to
T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>>
>> ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
>> which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
>> cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
>> them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.

In context, it doesn't. You just have to know what me means by
"interactors" (usually, that would refer to bodies) and "replicators"
(usually, genomes). He wants to generalize and so uses a general term.
If there is species selection, species might be considered to be both
interactors and replicators, for example.

> And taken in
> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> standard way.

He is referring not to species extinction, necessarily, but to any sort
of death. Again, he's trying to generalize. Extinction of individuals
(death), extinction of species (what we usually mean by the term), or
any other removal of interactors from the scene.

> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.

No.

> While
> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> central role (as far as I know). Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> that it is the effects of "differential survival" and "differential
> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping. In Darwinian
> evolution differential survival and differential reproduction refer to
> individuals within some species grouping and NOT between different
> species. Extinction refers to the complete loss of a species or at
> the very least the complete loss of some species grouping within some
> geographical boundary

If you try reading in context you might understand what he means. It's
useless to theorize in advance of the facts.

I'll just snip the rest, as it relies on a misreading of Hull's meaning.

Tim Anderson

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 11:19:54 PM1/6/12
to
Science by Chinese Whispers is fun to watch.

Tim Anderson

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 11:23:55 PM1/6/12
to
On Jan 7, 11:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
I'd read the paper first if I were you - the term is not being used in
context to refer to "species extinction" but rather to the death of
individual "replicators". Seems to me the document is an attempt to
provide some clarity in the literal terms used in evolutionary debate.
Nothing wrong with that, if it helps avoid muddled thinking. We don't
have to agree with the choice of terms being used.


backspace

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 12:47:55 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> standard way.
>
> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.

The DR was coined by http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
one must refer to authors and full sentences.

Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.
DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
creature died we would be told the same thing.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 5:37:01 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 5:47 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> > >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> > >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> > >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> > >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> > Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> > isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> > Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> > standard way.
>
> > Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
> > Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> > central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> > that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> > reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> > transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.
>
> The DR was coined byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
> meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
> species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
> one must refer to authors and full sentences.
>
> Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.
> DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
> of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
> will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
> creature died we would be told the same thing.

Which one is "the other creature" and where in any biology textbook do
you find that term? Nor does what you call Matthew's metaphor imply
that anything goes extinct, just that it becomes more rare (hence the
" differential" which you keep either ignoring or misunderstanding as
above), which only in the extreme case result in disappearing
altogether.

As for falsifiablility, the specific causal explanation that would be
offered for the reason why a trait becomes more rare differ of course
between traits, and are perfectly falsifiable. The claim e.g. that
the white fur of polar bears offers them a reproductive advantage
over dark fur because their prey sees them later, would be falsified
if we find out that their prey is blind and identifies predators by
smell or sound

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 6:56:47 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> isolation (as offered here by backspace)

he has helpfully provided a link. all it takes is to click it to see
the context

> it doesn't sound particularly
> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> standard way.
>


> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.

Only in the sense that Darwin is dead for quite some time now, and the
entry takes the genetic revolution that happened after his death into
account

> While
> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.  In Darwinian
> evolution differential survival and differential reproduction refer to
> individuals within some species grouping and NOT between different
> species.  Extinction refers to the complete loss of a species or at
> the very least the complete loss of some species grouping within some
> geographical boundary

In Hull, it can refer as much to loosing a specific trait, he uses it
very widely.
>
> With that in mind let's look at Hull's sentence:
>
> differential extinction  +   the reproduction of those left "causes"
> differential survival
>
> Often differential extinction refers to the relative loss between
> different species within a particular area.  As such "differential
> survival" must refer to the relative difference between species.  Some
> species become extinct and others survive.  The survivors "survive" in
> large part because they were able to reproduce.  So "differential
> extinction" + "the reproduction of those left" doesn't cause
> "differential survival" it is simply another way of expressing the
> same thing.  Hence Hull's forumlation is tautologous and lacks any
> content.

Well, those parts of the theory where you explain your vocabulary
often do. What he is talking about here is simple the
connection between the expressed phenotype on which selection works,
and the underlying genetic machinery. It distinguishes e.g.
evolutionary change in this sense from epigenetic change. We may
observe a proliferation of "drivers of 4x4s" in current urban society,
but that does not make it (necessarily) a case of Darwinian
evolution. If all change were like this, his definition would not so
much be falsified (does not really apply to them) but make them moot,
as in this case there would not be any Darwinian evolution. .

jillery

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 10:39:33 AM1/7/12
to
Then I'll take the literal form, from Wiktionary:
****************************************
1.The process or act of selecting. The large number of good candidates
made selection difficult.

2.Something selected. My final selection was a 1934 Chateau Lafitte.

3.A variety of items taken from a larger collection. I've brought a
selection of fine cheeses to go with your wine.

4.A musical piece. For my next selection, I'll play Happy Birthday in
F-sharp minor.
****************************************

Now I understand some people say this implies supernatural teleology,
but I disagree. In another thread, Bill argues persuasively that
non-living, unintelligent systems, like thermostats, make decisions
which are in principle no different than those of humans. ISTM if
there is any functional difference between "decision" and "selection",
it is that "decision" infers a selection from intelligence, a
conscious choice, and selection refers to the larger set which
includes unintelligent systems. So I would restate Bill's point by
substituting "selection" for "decision", but the substance remains.

Given that, it doesn't support your oft-repeated (ad nauseam) point
that the definition of "natural selection" is a tautology. Your
arguments are simply word games, an analogue of math proofs which hide
a divide-by-zero step.

Again from Wiktionary:
****************************************
1.(evolutionary biology) A process by which heritable traits
conferring survival and reproductive advantage to individuals, or
related individuals, tend to be passed on to succeeding generations
and become more frequent in a population, whereas other less
favourable traits tend to become eliminated.

2.(quantitative genetics) A process in which individual organisms or
phenotypes that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive
and reproduce: the differential survival and reproduction of
phenotypes.
****************************************

"Advantage" and "favorable" depend on the environment at the moment of
selection, ie the removal of an individual from the reproducing gene
pool. Of course, if there is no selection, there is no natural
selection, and all individuals will maximally reproduce.

HTH

backspace

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 1:13:38 PM1/7/12
to
Elliot sober says that only sentences can be tautologies. ns is a term
and can only be used as a metaphor because in the literal sense it is
an oxymoron: decisions aren't natural(unintended). Natural is an
interesting term due to its ambiguity. When I make a preferential or
natural selection(decision) for cake over banana,natural is used as
metaphor for intention. Its literal meaning is 'unintentional' . Such
as leaves naturally accumulating in the wind

Google tautology selection and you will find my theory on this
issue.

Terms and words must be defined in the literal sense in dictionaries.

T Pagano

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 1:17:44 PM1/7/12
to
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:47:55 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>>
>> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>>
>> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
>> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
>> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
>> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>>
>> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
>> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
>> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
>> standard way.
>>
>> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
>> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
>> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
>> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
>> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
>> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.
>
>The DR was coined by http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
>meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
>species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
>one must refer to authors and full sentences.

Since neither the isolated sentence you offered from Hull nor my
comments implied otherwise why raise this?


>
>Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.

Not true. While Darwin treated the unknown biological mechanisms as
black boxes he theorized that the "differential" would be small from
one generation to the next. Nothing has changed today. The changes
from one generation to the next are relatively small.


>DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
>of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
>will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
>creature died we would be told the same thing.

1. "Differential reproduction" and "natural selection" are not two
different mechanisms. Natural Selection is a label that includes both
"differential reproduction" and "differential survival."

2. Competition between species is NOT the universal cause of
extinction or necessarily even a significant cause of extinction.
Recall that Darwin (in formulating his theory) extrapolated "from"
Malthus's theory of competition in human society groupings "to"
collections of different species in any ecological niche. Darwin
presumed that competition for limited resources would be fierce,
unrelenting, and to the death---a driving force for change. However
we know today that Malthus's theory as extrapolted by Darwin is false.
Usually ecological niches are balanced and not in competition amoung
species to the death.

2. Extinction (whatever its cause) is important in that it is an
environmental factor (among many) that has an effect on "differential
reproduction" and "differential survival" among those species still
left in the same niche.

3. Darwin attempted to explain the origin of biological novelty,
biological diversity and hence new species; not its extinction.
Extinction was simply a factor to be considered. Darwin's theory
attempted to offer a naturalistic mechanism to connect discontinuous
groupings of species depicted in Linnaeus-like classifications in an
unbroken path to some First Common Ancestor.

4. Natural Selection is an observable, testable phenomenon in a
narrow domain. Unfortunately it has no predictive value outside of
that domain in either future events or retrodictive value to
reconstruct past ones. Natural Selection surely exists; however, it
serves to conserve existing information and not drive the creation of
new information.


Regards,
T Pagano


Burkhard

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 3:10:33 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 6:17 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:47:55 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> >> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> >> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> >> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> >> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> >> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> >> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> >> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> >> standard way.
>
> >> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
> >> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> >> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> >> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> >> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> >> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.
>
> >The DR was coined byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
> >meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
> >species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
> >one must refer to authors and full sentences.
>
> Since neither the isolated sentence you offered from Hull nor my
> comments implied otherwise why raise this?
>
>
>
> >Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.
>
> Not true.  While Darwin treated the unknown biological mechanisms as
> black boxes he theorized that the "differential" would be small from
> one generation to the next.

But that is not what differential reproduction means here. The
differential is not the change in the genetic makeup between
generations, but the difference bewteen individuals with different
traits in their chance to reproduce offsping that is in turn
procreating.

backspace

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:12:49 PM1/7/12
to
Which does not explain how the transition matrix maps poly-peptide
space into frog space.

jillery

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:41:00 PM1/7/12
to
So you actually provide a choice of one? How disingenuous. This puts
you in an awkward position. Either renounce your original claim and
prove your intellectual dishonesty, or address my argument on its
merits. Your choice.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:42:51 PM1/7/12
to
It also doesn't explain why Manchester United won last year's
premiership, so what?

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:38:11 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 6, 4:44 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
The tautologous conclusion is negative, hurting the veracity of the
claim known as "natural selection." Yet Tony failed to tell the
audience that he accepts the claim as scientifically true, having
existence in nature.

I offer the above contradiction as supporting my on-going conclusion
that Tony the Evolutionist is genuinely deluded and/or confused and/or
ignorant.

Ray (Old Earth anti-selectionist/evolutionist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:44:45 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 10:17 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:47:55 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
>
>
>
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> >> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> >> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> >> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> >> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> >> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> >> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> >> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> >> standard way.
>
> >> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
> >> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> >> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> >> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> >> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> >> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.
>
> >The DR was coined byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
> >meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
> >species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
> >one must refer to authors and full sentences.
>
> Since neither the isolated sentence you offered from Hull nor my
> comments implied otherwise why raise this?
>
>
>
> >Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.
>
> Not true.  While Darwin treated the unknown biological mechanisms as
> black boxes he theorized that the "differential" would be small from
> one generation to the next.  Nothing has changed today.  The changes
> from one generation to the next are relatively small.
>
> >DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
> >of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
> >will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
> >creature died we would be told the same thing.
>
> 1.   "Differential reproduction" and "natural selection" are not two
> different mechanisms.  Natural Selection is a label that includes both
> "differential reproduction" and "differential survival."
>

Once again, Tony's egregious ignorance continues unabated.
Differential reproduction and survival are NOT synonymous with
"natural selection" or synonyms; rather, natural selection is a three
component claim made about differential reproduction and survival. A
huge difference that Tony has been unable to grasp.

Ray
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 7:59:39 PM1/7/12
to
Tony will undoubtedly point out that he was merely crticizing Hull, as
if Hull is somehow outside of Darwin. Hull was a fanatical Darwinian.
Upthread one can find that Tony thinks otherwise. What Hull said (in
his own words) is what Darwin has said----that's what makes him a
Darwinian. Natural selection, as Tony and Backspace have pointed out,
is a tautology. Yet, as I already pointed out, Tony accepts the
existence of natural selection despite his correct belief that natural
selection is tautologous. The contradiction that I have established in
Tony's position stands.

Ray

backspace

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 3:45:30 AM1/8/12
to
On Jan 7, 9:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
> > >of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
> > >will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
> > >creature died we would be told the same thing.

> > 1.   "Differential reproduction" and "natural selection" are not two
> > different mechanisms.  Natural Selection is a label that includes both
> > "differential reproduction" and "differential survival."

> Once again, Tony's egregious ignorance continues unabated.
> Differential reproduction and survival are NOT synonymous with
> "natural selection" or synonyms; rather, natural selection is a three
> component claim made about differential reproduction and survival. A
> huge difference that Tony has been unable to grasp.

DR was coined by John Tyndall, who used SoF and ns . SoF is a phrase,
ns and ds is a term, he used both terms as metaphors for phrase SoF.
Today one can use the term ns as a metaphor for anything else. The
problem with today's usage of ns is like using phlogiston theory as
the metaphor for quantum theory: nobody knows what we are referring
to.

> > 4.  Natural Selection is an observable, testable phenomenon in a
> > narrow domain.  Unfortunately it has no predictive value outside of
> > that domain in either future events or retrodictive value to
> > reconstruct past ones.   Natural Selection surely exists; however, it
> > serves to conserve existing information and not drive the creation of
> > new information.

Whatever exists must be formulated using full sentences. NS is the
contraction of the matthew's full sentence: 'natural means of
competitive selection,preservation,incrementation'

ns is the shorthand so that we don't have to give the full sentence
every time. The full sentence is a meaningful unfalsifiable concept,
like what happens,happens is meaningful and unfalsifiable. The problem
today is that people use ns no longer as the metaphor for Matthew,
thus they are formulating meaningless sentences, reflecting the fact
that neither Ken Ham, Dembski, PZ Myers, Stephen Myers has a qlue what
they mean with ns.

Its like all the animals in animal farm ordered to chant a slogan :
they are not really thinking.

backspace

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 3:57:30 AM1/8/12
to
> Rayyh

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 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

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 1:34:11 PM1/8/12
to
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:13:38 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>Elliot sober says that only sentences can be tautologies.

But what does Elliot say when he's drunk? In vino veritas...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 4:34:51 PM1/8/12
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:13:38 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Elliot sober says that only sentences can be tautologies.
>
> But what does Elliot say when he's drunk? In vino veritas...

I've never seen him drunk, unlike some other well known philosophers of
biology I might mention :-)
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 4:57:17 PM1/8/12
to
> 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).

First off, no one, to my knowledge, ever claimed that the "phrase
itself" (natural selection) was tautologous. Rather, meaning or
explanation is tautologous. 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.) The fact that
natural selection is a tautology does not mean that natural selection
is false, but it is a negative conclusion contributing to
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.

Anyway : )

Ray (anti-selectionist/anti-evolutionist-species immutabilist)

backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 3:03:47 AM1/9/12
to
Only with his assertion that only sentences can be tautologies,
everything else he is wrong. I think he even mixes up a tautology and
circ. reasoning.

> "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).

> First off, no one, to my knowledge, ever claimed that the "phrase
> itself" (natural selection) was tautologous. Rather, meaning or
> explanation is tautologous. 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.

Sober is wrong on many things, but his assertion that only sentences
can be tautologies for me seems correct.

> 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.)

As i wrote on my wiki, ns was an arbitrary grammatical gargoyle tacked
unto a tautological sentence. Because the sentence itself cannot be
refuted it led people to assume that a term ns has some sort of
universal magical explanatory power.

> The fact that
> natural  selection is a tautology does not mean that natural selection
> is false, but it is a negative conclusion contributing to
> 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.

But terms have no meaning, neither do sentences: only ideas have
meaning. Its an issue of semantics, I could be wrong, but am nearly
certain that as a generalized language fact that only sentences can be
tautologies and not terms. Terms can be used as short hand proxies for
defined terms.

If the term 'natural selection' is a fixed tautology then I would not
be able to recycle the words and use it represent a 'preferential
decision'. Google for preferential+decision , the page should come
up.

Such is my view, if I am wrong from a linguistic point, I would change
my position and credit the author because I have been wrong many
times. At one point Wilkins had to explain to me that a tautology and
circular reasoning are not the same thing, for which I am very
thankful.

backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 8:00:11 AM1/9/12
to
http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-forum/natural-selection-is-a-tautology/6/

''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''

Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.

Confusing tautologies with circ. reasoning leads to endless confusion.

Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 9:14:21 AM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 1:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f...
>
> ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>
> Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.

circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A. Since this holds
in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
tautologous in the technical sense.

>
> Confusing tautologies with circ. reasoning leads to endless confusion.
>
> Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.

Begging the question is not the same as circular reasoning, at least
not if you follow Aristotle's definition of the two terms.:

"To beg and assume the original question is a species of failure to
demonstrate the problem proposed; but this happens in many ways. A
man may not reason syllogistically at all, or he may argue from
premisses
which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the
antecedent
by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what
is more certain and is prior. Now begging the question is none of
these: but since we get to know some things naturally through
themselves,
and other things by means of something else (the first principles
through themselves, what is subordinate to them through something
else), whenever a man tries to prove what is not self-evident by means
of itself, then he begs the original question. This may be done by
assuming what is in question at once...";


In that sense, the sentence you quote above is in Aristotle's terms
begging the question, but not circular reasoning - it is not that the
conclusion is also a premise, rather the person who wrote it seems to
complain tha tthe premise is irrelevant for the conclusion, hence not
a syllogistic argument at all.
Whether Aristotle's distinction between circular reasoning and begging
the question is ultimately convincing is another matter, but if you
don't follow him and identify both, they are both equally
tautologous.


backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 9:47:01 AM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 2:14 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 1:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f...
>
> > ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>
> > Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
>
> circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A.  Since this holds
> in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
> tautologous in the technical sense.

''.... Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion? As far as I can
see perpetuate and proliferate says the same thing twice in all
contexts whatever your premise and conclusion.

A tautology can't be refuted , nor verified in any context. With
circular reasoning , if it can be shown what premise , not clearly
stated by the formulator is being assumed then we can make his
conclusion conditional on exploring the validity of his premise and
thus perhaps agree that his conclusion follows logically from his
premise. With tautologies, any conclusion is a non-sequitur.

With the evo debates , we have two issues:
1) It is assumed that fossil dead bones had babies that made it to
reproductive age, something we will never know.
2) To obfuscate this fact a struggle theme or battle between the
creatures is introduced which can't be falsified.

> > Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.


> Begging  the question is not the same as circular reasoning,

I am aware of this, but have not yet been able to formulate why in
words clearly. The technical def. of begging the question though is
that the conclusion is formulated without stating the premise or
twisting the premise. Circular reasoning on the other hand is assuming
the premise in conclusion, meaning that the premise is stated clearly
but that it can't be assumed because the premise is in dispute. For
example Tiktaalik, we are told that he was the ancestor of somebody
else. Thus the premise is that he had kids, something we can't
assume.

(I am not sure I am making sense here).

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 10:21:44 AM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 2:47 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:14 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 1:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f...
>
> > > ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>
> > > Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
>
> > circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A. Since this holds
> > in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
> > tautologous in the technical sense.
>
> ''.... Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
> Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion? As far as I can
> see perpetuate and proliferate says the same thing twice in all
> contexts whatever your premise and conclusion.

Since this does not seem to be an argument at all, but a statement of
fact, something we simply observe, the talk of "premise" and
"conclusion" is inapplicable. Nor do proliferate and perpetuate say
the same thing. One is about quantity, the other about endurance.
What we could have observed e.g are animals that proliferate a lot
(have lots of offspring) but they don't perpetuate the offspring, as
it dies before being able to procreate in turn (in an extreme form
getting eaten by their parents) . So the statement (bearing in mind I
don;t know the context) simply says is what we observe in nature is
that animals that proliferate (parent generation) have a statistically
increased chance that their traits are perpetuated in their
grandchildren and grand-grandchildrens etc generations. There are of
course several possible new observations we coudl intheory mae that
woudl call the correctness of this statement into question.


>
> A tautology can't be refuted , nor verified in any context.

a tautology is by definition true in every context, i.e. self-
verufying.

>With
> circular reasoning , if it can be shown what premise , not clearly
> stated by the formulator is being assumed then we can make his
> conclusion conditional on exploring the validity of his premise and
> thus perhaps agree that his conclusion follows logically from his
> premise. With tautologies, any conclusion is a non-sequitur.

That doesn't make much sense. As I said, every circular argument is
itself a tautology.
Nor is it true that you can't derive valid conclusions from an
argument where the premises
are all tautologies - all mathematical proofs are of that form. So
there are lots of arguments
that are not just valid, but extremely interesting, that have
tautologies as premises.

>
> With the evo debates , we have two issues:
> 1) It is assumed that fossil dead bones had babies that made it to
> reproductive age, something we will never know.

We know it with the same degree of certainty that we can know that
people 2000 years ago had offspring.
We observe that today, all species of animals have members that have
offspring that at least in some cases has offspring in turn.
Nothing form the physiology of the dead bones indicates that animals
in the past were
not able to have viable offspring, and indeed the fact that we find
a) fossils of eggs and juveniles and b) in some cases even fossilised
pregnant animals
pretty strongly indicates they had offspring just as we do. With the
evidence as strong as that, any claim to the contrary has the burden
of proof - so if you find e.g.
genetic or skeletal evidence that shows that animals in the apst
were all sterile, feel free to show it - this woudl indeed falsify the
ToE, one of the many ways that this can be done.



> 2) To obfuscate this fact a struggle theme or battle between the
> creatures is introduced which can't be falsified.

Course it can. Finding evidence that all species survive due to
abundance, or all die out after a set period of time, would falsify
the idea that there is competition for scarce resources.
>
> > > Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.
> > Begging the question is not the same as circular reasoning,
>
> I am aware of this, but have not yet been able to formulate why in
> words clearly. The technical def. of begging the question though is
> that the conclusion is formulated without stating the premise or
> twisting the premise. Circular reasoning on the other hand is assuming
> the premise in conclusion, meaning that the premise is stated clearly
> but that it can't be assumed because the premise is in dispute. For
> example Tiktaalik, we are told that he was the ancestor of somebody
> else. Thus the premise is that he had kids, something we can't
> assume.

We can assume it on the basis that its physiology indicates the
features we would expect in any creature that procreates.
That is really all we need to know to make this a valid, if of course
falsifiable assumption.

jillery

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 12:28:55 PM1/9/12
to
You're not. Only the willfully ignorant claim as meaningful the
argument about not knowing if a particular fossil had descendants.

Rolf

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 12:38:11 PM1/9/12
to
Can you explain, do you have any clue at all about what happens in nature;
you know, like with flowers and bees? You really think someboyd is standing
by, manipulating their genes - or is the process left to nature's own ways?

Rolf

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 12:42:39 PM1/9/12
to
Natural selection does not drive the creation of any information. Where did
you get the silly idea that anyone would be silly enough to believe that?
Natural selection acts on existing information regardless of the source of
the information. What else could it be?

I read your responses one after the other, they all contain the same silly
and boring misunderstanding of everything, all the time. Phew.

Ernest Major

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 12:59:14 PM1/9/12
to
In message <jef8ps$pkt$1...@news.albasani.net>, Rolf
<rolf.a...@tele2.no> writes
That answer here depends on what is meant by information.

Frequency dependent selection results in a less compressible gene pool.
That could be considered the creation of (Shannon or Kolmgorov)
information.

The gene pool of a lineage records (imperfectly and indirectly) the
nature of the lineage's past environment. (For example the broken GULO
gene is primates records that millions of years ago primates had a
vitamin-C (fruit) rich diet.) That could be considered as creating
information.

Unless an operational definition of information is provided, arguments
about whether evolutionary processes can create information are
worthless.
>
>I read your responses one after the other, they all contain the same silly
>and boring misunderstanding of everything, all the time. Phew.
>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

Rolf

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 1:29:39 PM1/9/12
to
What is tautological about nature doing what nature does? What is unnatural
in selection on nature's own premises? You mean things cannot happen
naturally because natural is what nature is?

I bet you can't even describe what "Natural selection" means. Prove me wrong
for once. Just make sure you investigate what natural selection actually
means, not what you desperately claim it is and what it is not.


Natural selection is naturtal in the same sense that 'natutral death' is
natural, i.e. not god-willed. Got it?

Anything thatt happens on its own accord, so to speak, i.e. due to the
forces of nature - you know, chemistry, physics energy , is natural. Like
traffic accidents, collapsing bridges, and most other things.

> Ray


Rolf

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 1:30:26 PM1/9/12
to
The real meaning, or your imagined meaning?

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 1:29:14 PM1/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 06:47:01 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Jan 9, 2:14 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 1:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f...
>>
>> > ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>>
>> > Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
>>
>> circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A.  Since this holds
>> in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
>> tautologous in the technical sense.
>
>''.... Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
>Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion?

Neither. It's an observation of fact.

Your problem (of which you may or may not be aware) is that
NS doesn't talk about reproduction per se, but about
*differential reproductive success*. It's obvious (or should
be) that the individuals within a population which are best
adapted to their environment will, on average, have more
offspring than their less-adapted counterparts. Where NS
gets into the act is in the fact that offspring aren't
clones of their parents, and every generation will have
members better adapted to the environment, and that these
individuals will on average have greater reproductive
success, and thus more offspring, than their counterparts.
And since this happens with each generation, over many
generations the species will change, and always in the
direction of greater adaptation to the environment. Or it
goes extinct if the environment changes significantly and it
*doesn't* adapt.

> As far as I can
>see perpetuate and proliferate says the same thing twice in all
>contexts whatever your premise and conclusion.
>
>A tautology can't be refuted , nor verified in any context. With
>circular reasoning , if it can be shown what premise , not clearly
>stated by the formulator is being assumed then we can make his
>conclusion conditional on exploring the validity of his premise and
>thus perhaps agree that his conclusion follows logically from his
>premise. With tautologies, any conclusion is a non-sequitur.
>
>With the evo debates , we have two issues:
>1) It is assumed that fossil dead bones had babies that made it to
>reproductive age, something we will never know.
>2) To obfuscate this fact a struggle theme or battle between the
>creatures is introduced which can't be falsified.

The struggle, being a public and persistent observation
rather than a hypothesis, doesn't require test. Orif you
prefer, it's been tested and shown to be valid, since it's
characteristic of almost all living things.

>> > Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.
>
>
>> Begging  the question is not the same as circular reasoning,
>
>I am aware of this, but have not yet been able to formulate why in
>words clearly. The technical def. of begging the question though is
>that the conclusion is formulated without stating the premise or
>twisting the premise. Circular reasoning on the other hand is assuming
>the premise in conclusion, meaning that the premise is stated clearly
>but that it can't be assumed because the premise is in dispute. For
>example Tiktaalik, we are told that he was the ancestor of somebody
>else. Thus the premise is that he had kids, something we can't
>assume.

No, we can't. We *can*, however, place Tiktaalik in the
temporal map of creatures whose fossils we have and
determine, at least tentatively, which came before and which
after, and how they all appear to be related based on
morphology.

>(I am not sure I am making sense here).

Well, that's the beginning of wisdom...

backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 2:39:21 PM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 5:59 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Unless an operational definition of information is provided, arguments
> about whether evolutionary processes can create information are
> worthless.

Unless you can specify the transition matrix that maps protein space
into cow space you don't have a theory.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 3:20:02 PM1/9/12
to
> ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>
> Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
>
> Confusing tautologies with circ. reasoning leads to endless confusion.
>
> Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.

"But terms have no meaning, neither do sentences: only ideas have
meaning."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ffb1c8cf7cdc7337

How can you respond to the quoted sentence (''.....The observation
that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain
why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it
restates its premise as its conclusion.....'') if terms or sentences
have no meaning? Since you did respond the same means you claim to
understand.

Ray

backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 2:46:10 PM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 6:29 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >''.... Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
> >Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion?

> Neither. It's an observation of fact.

> Your problem (of which you may or may not be aware) is that
> NS doesn't talk about reproduction per se, but about
> *differential reproductive success*. It's obvious (or should
> be) that the individuals within a population which are best
> adapted to their environment will, on average, have more
> offspring than their less-adapted counterparts.

Which is a formulation that guarantees the truth of your proposition
and thus not falsifiable.

> Where NS
> gets into the act is in the fact that offspring aren't
> clones of their parents, and every generation will have
> members better adapted to the environment, and that these
> individuals will on average have greater reproductive
> success, and thus more offspring, than their counterparts.

Where NS gets into the act is that it is an oxymoron arbitrarily
associated with an unfalsifiable proposition.

Kermit

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 4:04:42 PM1/9/12
to
On Jan 6, 2:44 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2012/01/06 17:18), backspace wrote:
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> > ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> > which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> > cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> > them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> > rephrase:
> > The natural means of competitive selection(ns) is a  process in which
> > the incremental proliferation of interactors cause the incremental
> > perpetuation of the replicators.
>
> > rephrase:
> > The natural means of competitive proliferation(ns)
> > results in incremental  proliferation of interactors causing the
> > perpetuation of the replicators.
>
> > rephrase:
> > As the proliferators compete against others, those winning the process
> > of proliferation, perpetuate their line of proliferators
>
> > rephrase:
> > Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents in
> > incremental(differential) stages, leading eventually to the formation
> > of new species that can't -interbreed.
>
> > rephrase:
> > Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.
>
> > finally:
> > Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.
>
> > Perpetuate and proliferate in this case are synonyms that self-
> > referentially refer to the same fact, saying the same twice and thus a
> > rhetorical tautology. In other instances *dissimilar* terms are used
> > that self-referentially refer to the same fact. By saying the same
> > thing twice the authors are able to insert the non-sequitur
> > conclusion, namely that new species who can't interbreed arose in
> > small *differential* or *incremental* steps via this process of
> > Patrick Matthew's *natural means of competitive
> > selection,proliferation, preservation, perpetuation* etc. , which
> > Darwin contracted to natural selection , in order to avoid giving
> > credit to Matthew.
>
> > In Citizendium's ns article each paragraph is an exercise in saying
> > the same thing twice as discussed elsewhere.
>
> Good job backspace ! You have discovered that by incrementally changing
> something several times you end up with something quite different from
> the original ! Like with evolution !
>
> That was what you were trying to show, right ?
>
> --
> Arkalen
> Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
> quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.

But the changes cumulatively indicate a trend. So the question is, is
there intelligence behind that trend, or simply a mindless response to
(yet to be specified) but largely unchanging conditions?

Also, is it Lamarckian, Darwinian, or some other kind of evolution?

Kermit

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 12:49:42 AM1/10/12
to

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 1:18:16 AM1/10/12
to
As a stand alone sentence with no context ''.... Those that
proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' has a premise and
conclusion that can't be disassociated from one another. Lets for now
assume that begging the question and circular reasoning are exactly
the same thing and use the terms interchangeably .

In the proposition that there were descendants from the fossil bones
that in their present state would not be able to interbreed with those
original ancestors, these are assumptions not made clear. It assumes
the fossils had children. Lets assume not a single fossil had kids but
they all died in a flood. In other words there is a dispute about what
we are assuming.

In tautologies a semantic trick is constructed by formulating a
proposition so that it cannot be disputed in any context, meaning that
that the unwary reader will assume that any arbitrary conclusion has
to be correct instead of a non-sequitur. Because of this he becomes
unable to question the underlying premise leading to his arbitrary
conclusion. Thus a tautology, once identified can be stripped out of a
paragraph to more clearly see how the premise leads to the conclusion,
meaning what assumptions in the premise is being made.

With ''.... Those that proliferate , perpetuate their
descendants...'' we have an observable fact stated twice. A theory as
to why descendants increased will involve some sort of premise that
must be made clear, when the premise isn't clear, a conclusion is
reached that not all would agree on if the premises were clear. By
stating the same fact twice, there is an obfuscation in the paragraph
as to what is being assumed.

Begging the question usually in evo-speak takes place in a whole
paragraph , with such paragraph containing a tautology.

We have a limitation in language that makes it difficult to express
this distinction. Or I have a limitation in brains in comprehending
it, both could be possible.

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 3:36:00 AM1/10/12
to
The question is how did the transition matrix that maps protein space
into tiger space arise in the first place and where is it located ?

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:36:46 AM1/10/12
to
No it hasn't. A conclusion is of the form: " Y...because of X", where
Y would be a set of premises.

None of this applies to this sentence. The sentence simply reports an
observation.

>Lets for now
> assume that begging the question and circular reasoning are exactly
> the same thing and use the terms interchangeably .
>
> In the proposition that there were descendants from the fossil bones
> that in their present state would not be able to interbreed with those
> original ancestors, these are assumptions not made clear. It assumes
> the fossils had children. Lets assume not a single fossil had kids but
> they all died in a flood. In other words there is a dispute about what
> we are assuming.
>

As all the evidence supports the idea that they had offspring, and
none of it supports the idea that all the offspring died in a flood,
that would be a short dispute

> In tautologies a semantic trick is constructed by formulating a
> proposition so that it cannot be disputed in any context, meaning that
> that the unwary reader will assume that any arbitrary conclusion has
> to be correct instead of a non-sequitur. Because of this he becomes
> unable to question the underlying premise leading to his arbitrary
> conclusion. Thus a tautology, once identified can be stripped out of a
> paragraph to more clearly see how the premise leads to the conclusion,
> meaning what assumptions in the premise is being made.
>
> With ''.... Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their
> descendants...'' we have an observable fact stated twice.

No, we have two separate observations, one about the parent
generation, one about the offspring generations

> A theory as
> to why descendants increased will involve some sort of premise that
> must be made clear, when the premise isn't clear, a conclusion is
> reached that not all would agree on if the premises were clear. By
> stating the same fact twice, there is an obfuscation in the paragraph
> as to what is being assumed.

No there isn't Even if the same fact were stated twice this does not
make it a tautology. "The sun is a planet and the sun is a planet" is
stylistically clumsy, but not a tautology.

The sentence in question isn't even doing that , it states something
we observe _now_, and can be checked by simply counting offspring over
generations, It would be possible to observe something else (e.g. a
fixed rate of descend, or one where despite large offspring in the
next generation, no proliferation of across generations takes place
etc etc) hence it can't be a tautology

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:46:13 AM1/10/12
to
1=1 is a tautological assertion. There are three main types of
tautologies: assertions, expressions and propositions. usually there
is an equivocation between the two to obfuscate that a tautological
proposition is formulated. Only propositions are fallacies not
assertions and expressions.

1=1 can't be verified nor refuted, it is a mathematical redundancy, no
test can be devised to falsify it. We accept it as reflecting Godel's
theorem, meaning than in any logical description, something must be
assumed that can't be proven. If something can't be proven, it means
it can't be refuted nor verified.

On my wiki page http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_equations_aren't_tautologies
I made the case that John Wilkins equivocated between assertions and
propositions in order to obfuscate that NS is used as a proxy for an
unfalsifiable battle for survival mythology: 'natural means of
competitive selection' , which is a sentence. ns the term is the
metaphor for the sentence, this avoids having to write out the full
sentence every time.

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:05:40 AM1/10/12
to
''....Those who proliferate , perpetuate their descendants.....''
can be restated as either
1. We observe a proliferation of descendants.
2. We observe a perpetuation of descendants.

By formulating two separate sentences, it becomes clear that
proliferate <=> perpetuate in the single original sentence.

We observe rabbits proliferating. It then raises the question(not begs
the question): why do they proliferate and how did they acquire the
attributes that enable them to perpetuate?

Because Epicureans can't define the transition matrix that maps rabbit
proteins into fluffy bundles carrot eating herbivores , they state a
truism and reformulate it as a tautology.

Obviously rabbits proliferate, this goes without saying. The truism
gets reformulated as:
..... Rabbits who proliferate, perpetuate their descendants.... and
therefore the rabbits acquired attributes that weren't in their
previous generations.. The conclusion is a non-sequitur. In order to
hide this fact the sentence gets fleshed out with additional wordy
terms to turn it into paragraph.



Burkhard

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:25:08 AM1/10/12
to
That's because mathematics is not an empirical science, where you deal
with proofs and disproofs, not tests.


>We accept it as reflecting Godel's
> theorem, meaning than in any logical description, something must be
> assumed that can't be proven.

The tautological status of 1=1 has nothing to do with Goedel.it can be
proven(and as all mathematically proven statements is a tautology) in
systems much weaker than Peano Arithmetic, it's proof follows from the
definition of the "=" sign.

>If something can't be proven, it means
> it can't be refuted nor verified.
>
> On my wiki pagehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_equations_aren't_tautologies

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:37:57 AM1/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:46:13 -0800, backspace wrote:
<snip>

>> > A tautology can't be refuted , nor verified in any context.
>>
>> a tautology is by definition true in every context, i.e. self-
>> verufying.
>
> 1=1 is a tautological assertion.

Worse. It's a logical axiom.
<snip>

>Only propositions are fallacies not assertions and expressions.
>
> 1=1 can't be verified nor refuted,

That's because it's axiomatic.

> it is a mathematical redundancy, no
> test can be devised to falsify it. We accept it as reflecting Godel's
> theorem, meaning than in any logical description, something must be
> assumed that can't be proven. If something can't be proven, it means it
> can't be refuted nor verified.

In this case, it just means it's an axiom, which (by their very nature)
cannot be proven. If that were possible, they would not be axioms.
If they're any good, they follow from the axioms. If not, you made a mistake
somewhere.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ Someone in DAYTON, Ohio is selling USED \
\ CARPETS to a SERBO-CROATIAN /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:32:24 AM1/10/12
to
That would be an incorrect rendition of what the sentence says. No
equivalence is stated or implied
>
> We observe rabbits proliferating. It then raises the question(not begs
> the question): why do they proliferate and how did they acquire the
> attributes that enable them to perpetuate?

It may raise the question, but it does not beg the question (though
american idiom confuses the two). This is simply a new question that
can be investigated and falsifiable hypothesis formulated about it.
Just as a new question could be "will this proliferation result in a
drop in prices for rabbits at a market?"

>
> Because Epicureans can't define the transition matrix that maps rabbit
> proteins into fluffy bundles carrot eating herbivores , they state a
> truism and reformulate it as a tautology.
>
> Obviously rabbits proliferate, this goes without saying.

Not at all. Environmental hazards such as discarded medicine in the
drinking water could result in infertility. As could lack of food.
Whether or not rabbits proliferate is something that needs to be found
out empirically, but looking at rabbits in a specific environment and
carrying out tests.

> The truism
> gets reformulated as:
> ..... Rabbits who proliferate, perpetuate their descendants.... and
> therefore the rabbits acquired attributes that weren't in their
> previous generations.

That is not what the sentence states, it does not talk about new
traits.

> The conclusion is a non-sequitur.

It would be as formulated. Which is why you would not find it in this
way in a biology textbook

>In order to
> hide this fact the sentence gets fleshed out with additional wordy
> terms to turn it into paragraph.

You mean added statements with empirical content (such as observed
mutation rates) that make it a valid inference? How awful, all this
pesky data

Arkalen

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 6:29:10 AM1/10/12
to
Um, tiger space is a subspace of protein space. Care to rephrase that ?

TomS

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 6:42:22 AM1/10/12
to
"On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:46:13 -0800 (PST), in article
<5a00088e-6a33-4873...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, backspace
stated..."
I wonder where you got this from.

>
>1=1 can't be verified nor refuted, it is a mathematical redundancy, no
>test can be devised to falsify it. We accept it as reflecting Godel's
>theorem, meaning than in any logical description, something must be
>assumed that can't be proven. If something can't be proven, it means
>it can't be refuted nor verified.
>
>On my wiki page
>http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_equations_aren't_tautologies
>I made the case that John Wilkins equivocated between assertions and
>propositions in order to obfuscate that NS is used as a proxy for an
>unfalsifiable battle for survival mythology: 'natural means of
>competitive selection' , which is a sentence. ns the term is the
>metaphor for the sentence, this avoids having to write out the full
>sentence every time.
>


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 6:59:12 AM1/10/12
to
Excellent article on the by maverick philosopher on my wiki. He was
jibing at uncle Mo , who cut short the entire baiting exercise with :
Beer is beer.

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/when-is-a-tautology-not-a-tautology.html

Bill Vallicella called it a non-tautological expression,which
confuses the issues slightly: it remains a tautology, just not
tautological proposition. The point is that it isn't always a fallacy
to formulate tautologies. Carefully demarcating between assertions,
expressions and propositions helps us to discern when somebody is
trying to deceive like Wilkins is trying to do.

It was a tautological expression, a stylistic device , not used to
formulate an axiom or a formal proposition.
1) Beer is beer and therefore monkeys gave birth to humans -
tautological proposition.
2) Beer is beer. In the context uncle Mo used an expression to
say ....not taking the bait ...
3) Beer is beer like 1 is 1 - Tautological assertion, logical validity
or axiom. Things which are true by definition, assumed as the
supportive scaffolding in formulating falsifiable propositions.

This implies that falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability. What
can be proven resides ultimately in an unproven overarching
assumption.

TomS

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 7:16:34 AM1/10/12
to
"On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:59:12 -0800 (PST), in article
<d7d29523-4a9f-41c1...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, backspace
stated..."
[...snip...]

I'm sorry I asked.

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 7:18:09 AM1/10/12
to
On Jan 10, 10:37 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
wrote:
> In this case, it just means it's an axiom, which (by their very nature)
> cannot be proven. If that were possible, they would not be axioms.
>
> > On my wiki page
> >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_equations_aren't_tautologies
>
> If they're any good, they follow from the axioms. If not, you made a mistake
> somewhere.

Physics equations do not follow directly from 1=1 . F=ma doesn't say
the same thing twice.

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 7:33:36 AM1/10/12
to
The axiom A=A expresses equality. In that sense equating force 'F' to mass
'm' times acceleration 'a' follows from the axiom together with many
observations, or at least conforms with it.

Are you claiming physics is exempt from mathematical rules?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________
/ I hope the ``Eurythmics'' practice \
\ birth control ... /

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 8:26:19 AM1/10/12
to
It seems you misunderstand what he is saying on that website. What he
is arguing is that the sentence token "Beer is beer" looks like a
tautology.
However, in the context it is clear that the proposition that is
expressed by that token is "all beer is the same", which is an
empirical statement
The difference is bt between assertions an propositions, but between
isolated sentence tokens and what they express (the proposition, or
meaning of the sentence - some philosophers of language think it is
necessary to hypothesize abstract intermediaries bewteen sentences and
their referents)
>
> http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/w...
>
>  Bill Vallicella called it a non-tautological expression,which
> confuses the issues slightly: it remains a tautology, just not
> tautological proposition.

The other way round. The proposition that is expressed by the sentence
is not a tautology. You can quibble whether sentence tokens can be
tautologies. Depends rather on your theory of meaning. If, as they are
for many philosophers, propositions are the carrier of truth values
rather then sentences, then no sentence veer is a tautology (wrong
type of entity)

> The point is that it isn't always a fallacy
> to formulate tautologies.

In fact, formulating tautologies is never a fallacy. You can then of
course use tautologies in a fallacy, just as you can with every
sentence.

> Carefully demarcating between assertions,
> expressions and propositions helps us to discern when somebody is
> trying to deceive like Wilkins is trying to do.
>
> It was a tautological expression, a stylistic device , not used to
> formulate an axiom or a formal proposition.
> 1) Beer is beer and therefore monkeys gave birth to humans -
> tautological proposition.

No, simply invalid inference. a non sequitur, or fallacy of relevance
to be precise. Doesn't matter at all that the premise is a tautology,
you can replace it with "beer is nice" and you have exactly the same
mistake. The tautologous nature of the premise is merely accidental to
the mistake

> 2) Beer is beer.  In the context uncle Mo used an expression to
> say ....not taking the bait ...

I'd say he makes a simple statement: all beer is of equal quality, for
a reasonable standard of "equal".

> 3) Beer is beer like 1 is 1 - Tautological assertion, logical validity
> or axiom. Things which are true by definition, assumed as the
> supportive scaffolding in formulating falsifiable propositions.
>
> This implies that falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability.

No it doesn't, in any way, shape or form. In fact that statement is at
he opposite of a tautology, it is inconsistent.If falsifiability were
a subset of unfalsigfiability, every statement would be unfalsifiable.
What you might mean is that it is a question of of the context
theory of a statement whether ot not it is falsifiable in that
theory, but that is a different proposition.

> What
> can be proven resides ultimately in an unproven overarching
> assumption.

That does not make falsifiability a subset of falsifiability. Paris is
the capitol of England is a falsifiable claim

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 10:44:00 AM1/10/12
to
On Jan 10, 12:33 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:18:09 -0800, backspace wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 10:37 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> >> In this case, it just means it's an axiom, which (by their very nature)
> >> cannot be proven. If that were possible, they would not be axioms.
>
> >> > On my wiki page
> >> >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_equations_aren't_tautologies
>
> >> If they're any good, they follow from the axioms. If not, you made a
> >> mistake somewhere.
>
> > Physics equations do not follow directly from 1=1 . F=ma doesn't say the
> > same thing twice.

> The axiom A=A expresses equality. In that sense equating force 'F' to mass
> 'm' times acceleration 'a' follows from the axiom together with many
> observations, or at least conforms with it.



> Are you claiming physics is exempt from mathematical rules?

Are you claiming that f=ma is a tautological proposition?

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Ken_Ham

'''NOTES''': The quote below from AIG was removed by them without
explanation. They don't say anything about the tautology argument in
their present revision. If they have changed their view on this issue,
they must state why.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

:“.............Natural selection is a tautology.” Natural selection is
in one sense a tautology. Who are the fittest? Those who survive and
leave the most offspring. Who survive and leave the most offspring?
The fittest. But a lot of this is semantic wordplay, and depends on
how the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is
raised. There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go
hand in hand. For example, what is electric charge? That quality of
matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A
region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one
would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and
can’t explain how motors work; it is only that circularity cannot be
used as independent proof of something. To harp on the issue of
tautology can become misleading, if the impression is given that
something tautological therefore doesn’t happen. Of course the
environment can “select,” just as human breeders select. But
demonstrating this doesn’t mean that fish could turn into philosophers
by this means. The real issue is the nature of the variation, the
information problem. Arguments about tautology distract attention from
one of the real weaknesses of neo-Darwinism—the source of the new
information required. Given an appropriate source of variation (for
example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity
for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms
would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given
environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in
practice....................''

NOTEs:
V=IR is a falsifiable proposition. It states that to force the same
amount of charge through a larger resistance a larger voltage force
field is needed. An electric field exerts a force on an electric
charge proportional to the product of the charge(I) and
resistance(R). This doesn't state the same thing twice.

V=IR is a theory of electricity and thus not fallacious as the
proposition can be tested.

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 11:03:19 AM1/10/12
to
On Jan 10, 11:59 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/w...
>
>  Bill Vallicella called it a non-tautological expression,which
> confuses the issues slightly: it remains a tautology, just not
> tautological proposition. The point is that it isn't always a fallacy
> to formulate tautologies. Carefully demarcating between assertions,
> expressions and propositions helps us to discern when somebody is
> trying to deceive like Wilkins is trying to do.
>
> It was a tautological expression, a stylistic device , not used to
> formulate an axiom or a formal proposition.
> 1) Beer is beer and therefore monkeys gave birth to humans -
> tautological proposition.
> 2) Beer is beer.  In the context uncle Mo used an expression to
> say ....not taking the bait ...
> 3) Beer is beer like 1 is 1 - Tautological assertion, logical validity
> or axiom. Things which are true by definition, assumed as the
> supportive scaffolding in formulating falsifiable propositions.
>
> This implies that falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability. What
> can be proven resides ultimately in an unproven overarching
> assumption.

IN formulating such proposition premises will have to be assumed in
any conclusion. Thus we have another type of Berry's paradox style
problem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradox

Thus we need to designate what type of premise we are referring to
with premise1 and premise2.

All tautologies like all of logic involves a premise and conclusion.
Thus we need subscripts premise1 and premise2. I am talking about
formulating an argument using paragraphs where the premise2 is being
assumed in conclusion2 to designate the issue of begging the
question.

With the tautology - what happens, happens - involves assuming that
what happens indeed happens or premise1 implies conclusion1.

(... hope this makes sense, I am tired of explaining this and being
bated by Burkhard....)

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 11:52:19 AM1/10/12
to
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:46:10 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Jan 9, 6:29 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> >''.... Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
>> >Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion?
>
>> Neither. It's an observation of fact.
>
>> Your problem (of which you may or may not be aware) is that
>> NS doesn't talk about reproduction per se, but about
>> *differential reproductive success*. It's obvious (or should
>> be) that the individuals within a population which are best
>> adapted to their environment will, on average, have more
>> offspring than their less-adapted counterparts.

>Which is a formulation that guarantees the truth of your proposition
>and thus not falsifiable.

Wrong. It's a logical prediction which has been confirmed by
observation. As for falsifiability, observation that
better-adapted individuals do *not* have higher reproductive
success would have falsified it quite handily. But that's
not what happened. Or do you follow the McNameless Protocol?
(See my sig)

>> Where NS
>> gets into the act is in the fact that offspring aren't
>> clones of their parents, and every generation will have
>> members better adapted to the environment, and that these
>> individuals will on average have greater reproductive
>> success, and thus more offspring, than their counterparts.
>
>Where NS gets into the act is that it is an oxymoron arbitrarily
>associated with an unfalsifiable proposition.

Please show how it's a self-contradiction. Er, you do know
that's the meaning of "oxymoron", right? Like "jumbo
shrimp", or "open-minded Biblical literalist". And your
erroneous characterization of NS as unfalsifiable has been
refuted above.

Seems you haven't much to go on. Again.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 12:04:01 PM1/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:18:09 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

Neither does 1=1. It says it once. And only the usability of
the results keeps us from using fairly basic math to reduce
any valid values in f=ma (or for that matter, in *any* valid
equation) to 1=1.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 12:11:41 PM1/10/12
to
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:39:21 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

Typing "Huh?" would have consumed far less time. Ernest is
correct; arguments about anything which is undefined are
worthless. But of course, misinformation and confusion about
meaning are your stock in trade.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 1:46:00 PM1/10/12
to
I'm unclear what you mean by that. On the face of it, it is wrong. "x=x"
"A v -A" are all tautologies, They are single sentences, and hence do
not involve any premises or conclusion.

Do you mean that one definition of tautology is that it can be derived
from the empty set of premises ("verum de quaelibet", as scholastic
logicians would have said)? In that case you "could" say that the
tautological nature of "A v -A" is expressed by the inference: {}|- "A
v -A", which at least has the form of premises and conclusion - though
so it is the absence of premises in an argument that defines a tautology.

Or do you mean that tautologies of the form of a material implication
(example: "A & -A -> B", the principle of explosion) can be rewritten
into an argument which has indeed two premises and a conclusion:
{A, -A} |- B

Note that neither A, nor -A or B are tautologies, but the entire
argument is. That is true due to the equivalence relation between the
material implication on the object language level, and the inference
relation on the meta-theoretical level. It is one of the first results a
logic student normally learns. In that sense of course, _all_ valid
logical inferences are tautologous, and can therefore also always be
rewritten as a single tautological sentence.

> Thus we need subscripts premise1 and premise2. I am talking about
> formulating an argument using paragraphs where the premise2 is being
> assumed in conclusion2 to designate the issue of begging the
> question.
>
> With the tautology - what happens, happens - involves assuming that
> what happens indeed happens or premise1 implies conclusion1.

No, doesn't help at all to clarify what you mean. "What happens happens"
is a tautology, but not an argument, so does not have on the face of it
premises or conclusions. Now, as per the above, you could probably
translate "what happens happens" as "If something happens, then it
happens", and this you could in turn formalise as "A -> A". Since this
is a tautology with a material implication, you could rewrite this as A
|- A, which is a logically valid inference of course.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 3:31:31 PM1/10/12
to
Since you understood my sentences as challenging your ridiculous
belief about sentences, they do indeed have meaning.

Your mind has been completely corrupted by Skepticism and doubt. All
of your work here over the years has now been voided.

Stephan: you need to start listening and reading real scholars, not
pseudo-scholars (Darwinists & Atheists). I literally have no reason to
read anything you have to say ever again. That's how fucking stupid
you have become.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:32:58 PM1/10/12
to
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)
>

backspace

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 1:36:59 AM1/11/12
to
Calm down Row, if I am wrong about anything I will amend my position.
The author below has more brains than I do, perhaps you could take up
the issue with him, this is where I lifted the idea and to me he makes
sense.

http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.html#links

There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this"
or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or
"that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of
itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean
anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we
cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective
communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/
propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas.
Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic
representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to
create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own
self. We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a
certain sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't
themselves propositions.
The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms,
phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their
meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics,
the wider the variations in interpretations. This suggests that
sentences don't have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning
associated with a sentence or word, they can only symbolically
represent an idea

backspace

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 5:30:37 AM1/11/12
to
On Jan 10, 9:32�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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.

Is the contention that "free gift2" is a tautology1,2 or 3? true? . To
assert that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to miss-
frame the particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a
dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift2" 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.

> > 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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085053/?page=1

''..... the principle of natural selection, or survival of the
fittest(persistence of stable forms) .....''

SoF is an obvious tautology.... persistence <=> stable, they are
dissimilar terms that self-referentially refer to the same fact. A
concept I managed to get inserted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
while navigating Epicurean flak and subterfuge.

ns the term was used as metaphor for SoF the phrase. This does not
make ns mean SoF. It means that ns was the metaphor. But any term can
be used as metaphor for anything, what is meant today with ns is not
clear. The way the opening paragraph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
is phrased begs the same question Jerry Fodor on LRB asked: What is a
natural selection?

Lets rephrase Fodor: What is the full sentence for which the term ns
is used as a metaphor. Back in 1922 on Pubmed it was the phrase SoF.



Burkhard

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 8:26:02 AM1/11/12
to
On Jan 11, 10:30 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 9:32 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Is the contention that "free gift2" is a tautology1,2 or 3? true?

Don't know what you mean with the numbers. "Free gift" is not even a
possible tautology, I thought you had by now accepted that terms can't
be tautologies. It is a pleonasm.

>. To
> assert that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to miss-
> frame the particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a
> dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift2" 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.

Sure, so what? Words can have more than one meaning, sometimes te
differences are subtle, and there is a possibility of
misunderstanding. normally the context helps to disambiguate
sufficiently, some principle form pragmatics such as the principle of
charity help, and if in doubt ask. I would not have thought of
"suddenly, without warning" as a pleonasm in the first place myself,
the free gift example work in that respect better, l

> > > 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.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085053/?page=1
>
> ''..... the principle of natural selection, or survival of the
> fittest(persistence of stable forms) .....''
>
> SoF is  an obvious tautology.... persistence <=> stable,

That why it is in bracket, you are getting the syntax of the sentence
wrong. As the brackets, and the "or", indicate,the sentence simply
informs the readder tha there are several equivalent ways to express
"SoF", to help the reader. That makes the whole sentence similar to a
definition, at this point no empirical content is communicated r
intended.
Nothing to do with whether SoF is a pleonasm or not.

they are
> dissimilar terms that self-referentially refer to the same fact. A
> concept I managed to get inserted athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
> while navigating Epicurean flak and subterfuge.


Don't know which parts you are responsible for, but the entry starts
already with a confusion between pleonasm and tautologies. It is not
necessary for a sentence to be a tautology to use slightly different
terms, "A=A" is a tautology, but uses the same terms.
> ns the term was used as metaphor for SoF the phrase.  This does not
> make ns mean SoF. It means that ns was the metaphor. But any term can
> be used as metaphor for anything, what is meant today with ns is not
> clear.

Words get their meaning through the community f speakers. Biologist
and interested laypeople have no problem communicating with each other
about NS, that makes the word meanig as clear as we can expect for
any term of language.

>The way the opening paragraph onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> is phrased begs the same question Jerry Fodor on LRB asked: What is a
> natural selection?

We went over that before. It was a rhetorical question,. he gave the
answer three paragraphs further down in the article:

"It is, in short, an entirely EMPIRICAL question to what extent
exogenous variables are what shape phenotypes; and it’s entirely
possible that adaptationism is the wrong answer."

with other words, the meaning of " natural selection" is clear enough
to allow
empirical testing of its hypothesis <my addition: with other words it
is neither meaningless, nor a tautology>
, and it might just be that it is less frequent than "strict
adaptionists" think. He mentions evo-devo
as an alternative, a more radical one would have been strict neutral
theories (where most of the change happens due to genetic drift)

His own position, from the same article: "But that argument [of our
common descent]is over now. Except,
perhaps, in remote backwaters of the American Midwest, the Darwinian
account of our species’ history is common ground in all civilised
discussions, and so it should be. The evidence really is overwhelming"


>
> Lets rephrase Fodor: What is the full sentence for which the term ns
> is used as a metaphor. Back in 1922 on Pubmed it was the phrase SoF.

Sentences are not metaphors for terms, or vice versa. You are again
confusing syntactic categories.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 9:02:45 AM1/11/12
to
On Jan 10, 8:31 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 9:49 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 8:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 9, 5:00 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f...
>
> > > > ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>
> > > > Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
>
> > > > Confusing tautologies with circ. reasoning leads to endless confusion.
>
> > > > Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.
>
> > > "But terms have no meaning, neither do sentences: only ideas have
> > > meaning."
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ffb1c8cf7cdc7337
>
> > > How can you respond to the quoted sentence (''.....The observation
> > > that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain
> > > why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it
> > > restates its premise as its conclusion.....'') if terms or sentences
> > > have no meaning? Since you did respond the same means you claim to
> > > understand.
>
> > > Ray
>
> >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Sentences_have_no_meaning
>
> Since you understood my sentences as challenging your ridiculous
> belief about sentences, they do indeed have meaning.
>
> Your mind has been completely corrupted by Skepticism and doubt. All
> of your work here over the years has now been voided.

It is difficult to find out what he means, and he most certainly has
at least flirted with relativism and scepticism in the past (whenever
he writes about "worldviews", or misapplies Goedel's theorem)

But the statement above does not necessarily imply scepticism. His
argument, to the extend I can make out, simply says that it is not the
sentence tokens that have meaning, but the proposition (thought, idea)
expressed by that sentence there is still meaning and truth, just
attached to a different entity, ontologically speaking.

It seems to be based on his somewhat confused rendition of an
otherwise pretty common position in the philosophy of language.
Normally it is put like this: "snow is white", "Schnee ist weiss" and
"La neve e bianca" are three sentences that express all the same
proposition (idea, thought etc), i.e. that snow is white. So for many
linguistics, the proposition that snow is white is the meaning of the
sentences "der Schnee ist weiss" etc. Propositions, in this view, are
abstract entities that are the meaning of concrete entities, sentence
tokens.

Now backspace, for reasons only he knows, changes this traditional
picture where propositions ARE the meaning of sentences to one where
propositions "have" meaning and sentences not. My guess is that he
misremembered something about truth values - in one common
approach,sentences are not true or false, but the propositions that
they express are (that is Frege's idea of sentences as "names" of
propositions)

this may _sound_ like scepticism or epistemological relativism, but
isn't. It just shifts truth from sentences to their corresponding
propositions,as far as science and knowledge is concerned, everything
stays the same.

backspace

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 9:12:41 AM1/11/12
to
On Jan 11, 1:26 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> > dissimilar terms that self-referentially refer to the same fact. A
> > concept I managed to get inserted athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
> > while navigating Epicurean flak and subterfuge.

> Don't know which parts you are responsible for, but the entry starts
> already with a confusion between pleonasm and tautologies. It is not
> necessary for a sentence to be a tautology to use slightly different
> terms, "A=A" is a tautology, but uses the same terms.

This part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements
that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in
such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that the
truth of the proposition cannot be disputed by defining a dissimilar
or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially.
Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless
of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of
formulating a description such that it masquerades as an explanation
when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently
derived. A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a
tautology in propositional logic, since the inherent meanings and
subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical tautologies are very
different.

> > ns the term was used as metaphor for SoF the phrase.  This does not
> > make ns mean SoF. It means that ns was the metaphor. But any term can
> > be used as metaphor for anything, what is meant today with ns is not
> > clear.

> Words get their meaning through the community of speakers. Biologist
> and interested laypeople have no problem communicating with each other
> about  NS, that makes the word meanig as clear as we can expect for
> any term of language.

Which raises the question: what is a Natural selection? Would you
define for me the full sentence.

> > Lets rephrase Fodor: What is the full sentence for which the term ns
> > is used as a metaphor. Back in 1922 on Pubmed it was the phrase SoF.
>
> Sentences are not metaphors for terms, or vice versa. You are again
> confusing syntactic categories.

You misread me, I meant that the term ns was used as the metaphor for
a phrase(SoF). It was also used as the metaphor for Patrick Matthew's
''..... species acquired new attributes via the natural means of
competitive selection,preservation,accumulation ....''. References are
on my wiki

Sentences can't be used as metaphors for terms, only terms as
metaphors for sentences.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 9:31:01 AM1/11/12
to
On Jan 11, 2:12 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:26 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > dissimilar terms that self-referentially refer to the same fact. A
> > > concept I managed to get inserted athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
> > > while navigating Epicurean flak and subterfuge.
> > Don't know which parts you are responsible for, but the entry starts
> > already with a confusion between pleonasm and tautologies. It is not
> > necessary for a sentence to be a tautology to use slightly different
> > terms, "A=A" is a tautology, but uses the same terms.
>
> This part:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)
> A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements
> that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in
> such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that the
> truth of the proposition cannot be disputed by defining a dissimilar
> or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially.
> Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless
> of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of
> formulating a description such that it masquerades as an explanation
> when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently
> derived. A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a
> tautology in propositional logic, since the inherent meanings and
> subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical tautologies are very
> different.

I can't see the difference to a logical tautology, whose truth you
also can't dispute.

>
> > > ns the term was used as metaphor for SoF the phrase.  This does not
> > > make ns mean SoF. It means that ns was the metaphor. But any term can
> > > be used as metaphor for anything, what is meant today with ns is not
> > > clear.
> > Words get their meaning through the community of speakers. Biologist
> > and interested laypeople have no problem communicating with each other
> > about  NS, that makes the word meanig as clear as we can expect for
> > any term of language.
>
> Which raises the question: what is a Natural selection? Would you
> define for me the full sentence.
>

What full sentence? I can explain the term with any number of
sentences. or do you have a specific sentence from the ToE in mind
that uses the term?

> > > Lets rephrase Fodor: What is the full sentence for which the term ns
> > > is used as a metaphor. Back in 1922 on Pubmed it was the phrase SoF.
>
> > Sentences are not metaphors for terms, or vice versa. You are again
> > confusing syntactic categories.
>
> You misread me, I meant that the term ns was used as the metaphor for
> a phrase(SoF). It was also used as the metaphor for Patrick Matthew's
> ''..... species acquired new attributes via the natural means of
> competitive selection,preservation,accumulation ....''. References are
> on my wiki
>
> Sentences can't be used as metaphors for terms, only terms as
> metaphors for sentences.

Doesn't work either. They are different syntactic categories. Maybe
you mean nominal phrases "eyes as lovely as that of a cow are" as
metaphor for "beautiful eyes"? But neither is a sentence.

backspace

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 10:12:37 AM1/11/12
to
Lol! ..... that's how this game is played! You do realize Professor
that you are making people insane? There are millions of tautologified
zombies out there fiercely defending the Theory of Natural Selection
against the 'creatards'(creationists) yet have not the remotest clue
what is a natural selection. You of course know this very well..

I can only shake my head in amazement , hoping that by the grace of
the Lord Jesus some will see the light...

backspace

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 10:23:15 AM1/11/12
to
On Jan 11, 1:26 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
SoF is a phrase that says the same thing twice. Where did I say it was
a pleonasm?

In any case John Wilkins explained to me that a Tautology is not the
same thing as circular reasoning.

His view is correct and you are wrong, as a very clever materialist
prof. you obviously know this and one can only conclude you are being
dishonest in your replies.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 10:57:59 AM1/11/12
to
A pleonasm is a phrase that says the same thing twice. It is the term
used for things that say the same thing twice that are not sentences
(which would be tautologies) That was Sober's point whom you cited
approvingly, so I thought yo had finally accepted the technical
vocabulary - that IF the phrase SoF said the same thing twice, it
would be a pleonasm. as it doesn't, Since survival and fitness are
rather different properties that not only mean different things, but
also need not apply the same entities, the point is rather moot.

>
> In any case John Wilkins explained to me that a Tautology is not the
> same thing as circular reasoning.

I'd need to see what John had in mind there. They are not the same
thing, one is a subset of the other. Every circular argument is a
tautology, but not every tautology is a circular argument (simply
because many tautologies are not arguments at all)

> His view is correct and you are wrong,  as a very clever materialist
> prof. you obviously know this and one can only conclude you are being
> dishonest in your replies.

Nothing to do with materialism, just basic introduction to logic stuff
that you can easily read up on in either of the two books I cited
earlier.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 11:04:10 AM1/11/12
to
I'm not the one playing endless word games, misusing terms or using
them with non-standard meaning, and refusing to back his claims with
references to the literature. That would be you.

"Natural selection" is syntactically a phrase (a nominal phrase to be
precise) That was Sober's point. Your question: "Define for me the
full sentence" is therefore as meaningless as Chomsky's sleeping
triangles. I have no idea what you mean. If you want a definition of
NS in the form of one, two or more sentences, just say so. If you have
a specific sentence of the ToE in mind that uses the term, e.g. "NS
fixes traits in a population" say which sentence you have problems
with.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 11:48:13 AM1/11/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:52:19 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:46:10 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
><steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Jan 9, 6:29 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>> >''.... Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
>>> >Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion?
>>
>>> Neither. It's an observation of fact.
>>
>>> Your problem (of which you may or may not be aware) is that
>>> NS doesn't talk about reproduction per se, but about
>>> *differential reproductive success*. It's obvious (or should
>>> be) that the individuals within a population which are best
>>> adapted to their environment will, on average, have more
>>> offspring than their less-adapted counterparts.
>
>>Which is a formulation that guarantees the truth of your proposition
>>and thus not falsifiable.
>
>Wrong. It's a logical prediction which has been confirmed by
>observation. As for falsifiability, observation that
>better-adapted individuals do *not* have higher reproductive
>success would have falsified it quite handily. But that's
>not what happened. Or do you follow the McNameless Protocol?
>(See my sig)

[Crickets...]

>>> Where NS
>>> gets into the act is in the fact that offspring aren't
>>> clones of their parents, and every generation will have
>>> members better adapted to the environment, and that these
>>> individuals will on average have greater reproductive
>>> success, and thus more offspring, than their counterparts.
>>
>>Where NS gets into the act is that it is an oxymoron arbitrarily
>>associated with an unfalsifiable proposition.
>
>Please show how it's a self-contradiction. Er, you do know
>that's the meaning of "oxymoron", right? Like "jumbo
>shrimp", or "open-minded Biblical literalist". And your
>erroneous characterization of NS as unfalsifiable has been
>refuted above.

[Crickets...]

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 11:48:59 AM1/11/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:04:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:18:09 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
><steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Jan 10, 10:37 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
>>wrote:
>>> In this case, it just means it's an axiom, which (by their very nature)
>>> cannot be proven. If that were possible, they would not be axioms.
>>>
>>> > On my wiki page
>>> >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_equations_aren't_tautologies
>>>
>>> If they're any good, they follow from the axioms. If not, you made a mistake
>>> somewhere.
>>
>>Physics equations do not follow directly from 1=1 . F=ma doesn't say
>>the same thing twice.
>
>Neither does 1=1. It says it once. And only the usability of
>the results keeps us from using fairly basic math to reduce
>any valid values in f=ma (or for that matter, in *any* valid
>equation) to 1=1.

Little "Oopsie" moment there, BS?

backspace

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 12:16:13 PM1/11/12
to
It seems I misread Elliot and will now try to rectify the confusion I
created:

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Only_sentences_can_be_tautologies



== Sober ==
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=6bLZQzDd0f4C&pg=PA64&dq=tautology+selection&hl=en&ei=uOzQTtfNMsOv8QO12Ny1BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=tautology%20selection&f=false

States that only sentences can be tautologies and not phrases, which
is incorrect. Only Phrases and sentences can be used to formulated
rhetorical tautologies(type3). Terms should only be used as metaphors
to refer to full sentences in order to avoid writing out the full
sentence.

A rhetorical tautology is defined as formulating an argument that
guarantees the truth of a proposition. Arguments consist of full
sentences. SoF as a phrase is inserted into paragraphs with the result
that the propositional argument is being guaranteed , immune to
falsification.

Circular reasoning is a distinct concept separate from a tautology. In
an argument(full sentences making a paragraph) a conclusion will be
inferred from a premise. If the conclusion is stated without stating
the premise then we have ''begging the question''.

The conclusion itself could contain additional non-essential terms,
either synonymous or dissimilar that self-referentially refer to the
same fact, guaranteeing the truth of the proposition. Failure to
identify the tautology3 terms might lead to failure to infer that the
premise was never stated.

Thus there must be a difference between begging the question and
formulating propositional arguments(phrases,sentences) in such a way
that their truth can't be disputed. The types of tautologies must be
tagged with subscripts to avoid confusion as per
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions#Tautology_naming_conventions

Survival of the fittest is a tautology.


Burkhard

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 1:45:11 PM1/11/12
to
On Jan 11, 5:16 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems I misread  Elliot and will now try to rectify the confusion I
> created:
>
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Only_sentences_can_be_tautologies
>
> == Sober ==http://books.google.co.za/books?id=6bLZQzDd0f4C&pg=PA64&dq=tautology+...
>
> States that only sentences can be tautologies and not phrases, which
> is incorrect.

He is in line with every textbook definition I know. Tautologies are
necessarily true(true in all models) , Hence only linguistic entities
that can be true or false are candidates for tautologies.
The smallest such entity are sentences. Phrases are neither true nor
false, hence a fortiori not necessarily true or false, hence never
tautologous.
They can be pleonastic though, as in the case of "black darkness" or
other redundant expressions that unnecessarily say same thing
twice.


> Only Phrases and sentences can be used to formulated
> rhetorical tautologies(type3).

Phrases are used to formulate sentences. Sentences can be tautologies.
Sentences that are not tautologies themselves can be used to form
longer sentences, or entire arguments (which are essentially set of
sentences)
that are then tautologies.

>Terms should only be used as metaphors
> to refer to full sentences in order to avoid writing out the full
> sentence.

That makes no sense. Terms are constituent parts of sentences.
Metaphors are simply comparisons, terms that stand for other things,
not sentences.

>
> A rhetorical tautology is defined as formulating an argument that
> guarantees the truth of a proposition.

Which by coincidence is also the definition of a valid deduction.
In fact, all deductive arguments guarantee the truth of the
preposition provided the premises are true.

see e.g. S C Kleene, (1967) Mathematical Logic, para 6.

>Arguments consist of full
> sentences. SoF as a phrase is inserted into paragraphs with the result
> that the propositional argument is being guaranteed , immune to
> falsification.

That does not make any sense. SoF is a phrase that can be combined
with (inserted into) other phrases to form a sentence. Even if
a phrase is a pleonasm, this does not mean that every sentence using
that term is a tautology. "1=1" is a tautology, yet the sentence:
"1=1 and Paris is the capitol of the US"
is not a tautology, but a false statement;

>
> Circular reasoning is a distinct concept separate from a tautology.

Circular reasoning is a form of tautology (i.e. every circular
argument is a tautology, but not every tautology is a circular
argument. A |- A is a circular argument, and also a tautology (true in
all models)

> an argument(full sentences making a paragraph) a conclusion will be
> inferred from a premise. If the conclusion is stated without stating
> the premise then we have ''begging the question''.

No, we have what is known as an enthymeme, a totally different thing.
Entyhmemes are typically valid inferences where for stylistic reasons,
a premise is not stated

see e.g.
Bitzer, Lloyd. "Aristotle's Enthymeme Revisited." Quarterly Journal of
Speech 45:4 (1959): 399-408.
or
Miller, Arthur and John D. Bee. "Enthymemes: Body and Soul."
Philosophy and Rhetoric 5:4 (1972): 201-214.

"Begging the question" by contrast is an argument where there is no
premise other than the conclusion itself "[B]egging the question is
proving what is not self-evident by means of itself...either because
predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because
the same predicate belongs to subjects which are identical."
Aristotle, Prior Analytics II XV

for a more modern rendition of the same idea see Graham Priest: Logic:
A Very Short Introduction p. 29


> The conclusion itself could contain additional non-essential terms,
> either synonymous or dissimilar that self-referentially refer to the
> same fact, guaranteeing the truth of the proposition. Failure to
> identify the tautology3 terms might lead to failure to infer that the
> premise was never stated.
>
> Thus there must be a difference between begging the question and
> formulating propositional arguments(phrases,sentences) in such a way
> that their truth can't be disputed.  The types of tautologies must be
> tagged with subscripts to avoid confusion as perhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions#Tautology_naming_...
>
> Survival of the fittest is a tautology.

No it isn't, in any shape, way or form. It is of the wrong syntactic
category to be a tautology to start with, Even if you render it into a
sentence like "Only the fit survive", it is not a tautology. We can
see this by looking at all the models where everybody survives, or one
where nobody has better chances of survival than anybody else. .. In a
world where nobody ever dies (think pre Fall Eden), there is no SoF.
In a world where everybody dies at exactly the same time, having
produced exactly the same number of offspring, there is no SoF.
Either example is sufficient to falsify your claim that "the fit
survive" is tautologous, since tautologies are true in all models.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 1:49:11 PM1/11/12
to
Very enlightening, Thanks.

Ray

backspace

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 2:47:24 PM1/11/12
to
On Jan 11, 6:45 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 5:16 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It seems I misread  Elliot and will now try to rectify the confusion I
> > created:
>
> >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Only_sentences_can_be_tautologies
>
> > == Sober ==http://books.google.co.za/books?id=6bLZQzDd0f4C&pg=PA64&dq=tautology+...
>
> > States that only sentences can be tautologies and not phrases, which
> > is incorrect.
>
> He is in line with every textbook definition I know. Tautologies are
> necessarily true(true in all models) , Hence only linguistic entities
> that can be true or false are candidates for tautologies.
> The smallest such entity are sentences.  Phrases are neither true nor
> false, hence a fortiori not necessarily true or false, hence never
> tautologous.
> They can be pleonastic though, as in the case of "black darkness" or
> other redundant expressions that unnecessarily say  same thing
> twice.

Both you and Sober equivocate between tautologies in propositional
logic and tautologies in propositional arguments.

A or not-A is tautology in propositional logic, while a paragraph
containing SoF, guarantees the truth of the proposition. Thus we must
use Tautology1 (logic) and Tautology3(rhetorical) to differentiate
between the two .

Please use subscripts to designate which type of tautology you refer
to.

Because on Wikipedia RT it states: .... A rhetorical tautology should
not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic, since the
inherent meanings and subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical
tautologies are very different..........

backspace

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:06:02 PM1/11/12
to
On Jan 11, 6:45 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Survival of the fittest is a tautology.

> No it isn't, in any shape, way or form. It is of the wrong syntactic
> category to be a tautology to start with,

As a logical tautology you are correct, but as tautological
propositional argument I would beg to differ.


> Even if you render it into a sentence like "Only the fit survive", it is not a tautology.

Lets rather not do this and stick with the propositional argument
Spencer formulated:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRkRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA444&ci=194,1037,704,290&source=bookclip

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

That is to say, it cannot but happen that those individuals whos
functions are most out of equilibrium with the
modified aggregate of external forces, will be those to die; and that
those will survive whos functions happen to be most
nearly in equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces.

But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the
fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be
an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the
least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual
destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of
maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force,
there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in
equilibrium with the altered conditions. The Principles of Biology By
Herbert Spencer

=== rephrase ===
Spencer wrote: "....That is to say, it cannot but happen that those
individuals whos functions are most out of equilibrium with the
modified aggregate of external forces, will be those to die; and that
those will survive whos functions happen to be most nearly in
equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces...."

rephrase for tautology: "...those individuals out of equilibrium .....
will ... die; and that those will survive who are in equilibrium..."

rephrase: "...those out of equilibrium die, while those in equilibrium
will survive..." which reduces to What happens, happens.

finally: '''"...those out of Fitness(equilibrium) die, while those in
Fitness(equilibrium) will survive..."''' which reduces to What
happens, happens. ....................''


Burkhard

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:19:39 PM1/11/12
to
On Jan 11, 7:47 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 6:45 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 5:16 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It seems I misread  Elliot and will now try to rectify the confusion I
> > > created:
>
> > >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Only_sentences_can_be_tautologies
>
> > > == Sober ==http://books.google.co.za/books?id=6bLZQzDd0f4C&pg=PA64&dq=tautology+...
>
> > > States that only sentences can be tautologies and not phrases, which
> > > is incorrect.
>
> > He is in line with every textbook definition I know. Tautologies are
> > necessarily true(true in all models) , Hence only linguistic entities
> > that can be true or false are candidates for tautologies.
> > The smallest such entity are sentences.  Phrases are neither true nor
> > false, hence a fortiori not necessarily true or false, hence never
> > tautologous.
> > They can be pleonastic though, as in the case of "black darkness" or
> > other redundant expressions that unnecessarily say  same thing
> > twice.
>
> Both you and Sober equivocate between tautologies in propositional
> logic and tautologies in propositional arguments.

Nope, you invented a distinction that is meaningless to hide the lack
of substance and the internal contradictions of your arguments. The
subject matter of propositional logic are propositional arguments.

>
> A or not-A is tautology in propositional logic, while a paragraph
> containing SoF, guarantees the truth of the proposition.

Nonsense. Most of your paragraphs in this thread contain the phrase
"SoF" Does this make your arguments tautological? Obviously not.
Here a couple of obvious tautologies ; "What is white is white";
"1=1", "Washington is the capitol of the US or Washington is not the
Capitol of the US" ;" bachelors are unmarried man" and here a number
of uncontroversially pleonastic expressions; "white whiteness";
"black darkness";

Now we can insert all of these into arguments without as a result
turning the argument into an empty tautology: "bachelors are
unmarried man; Unmarried man are liable to higher income tax. Peter is
a bachelor. THEREFORE Peter is liable to higher income tax."

This is a perfectly sound argument with empirical content. "tautology"
is not something arguments catch like an illness from their
constituent parts. A perfectly good and non-trivial argument can have
as many tautologies in its premises as you like. The only problem with
tautologies, if any, is when they are the sole conclusion of an
argument.


>Thus we must
> use Tautology1 (logic) and Tautology3(rhetorical) to differentiate
> between the two .
>
> Please use subscripts to designate which type of tautology you refer
> to.
>
> Because on Wikipedia RT it states: ....  A rhetorical tautology should
> not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic, since the
> inherent meanings and subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical
> tautologies are very different..........

And there is no reference to any authoritative source, not any
explanation what the nature of this difference might be. And if they
were indeed different, then your entire argument is based on an
equivocation. From a Popperian, theory of science point of view.
tautologies are a logical problem if they are used to convey empirical
information. That is because of their _logical_ features. If what you
are talking about are "rhetorical tautologies" that do not share these
features with logical tautologies, not of this matters, and calling
SoF a rhetorical tautology is about as interesting as calling it a
"three-word -phrase"

If you want to use this to argue about Popper and falsification in
science, the only term that matters is the logical one, since
falsification is based entirely on a logical idea.


Burkhard

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 3:38:55 PM1/11/12
to
On Jan 11, 8:06 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 6:45 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Survival of the fittest is a tautology.
> > No it isn't, in any shape, way or form. It is of the wrong syntactic
> > category to be a tautology to start with,
>
> As a logical tautology you are correct, but as tautological
> propositional argument I would beg to differ.

It is also not a propositional argument. It is a phrase or term.
Arguments have more than one sentence,

>
> > Even if you render it into a  sentence like "Only the fit survive", it is not a tautology.
>
> Lets rather not do this

says the person who not only "reformulates everything", but in a way
that distorts the meaning of the original
At least, moving from "survival of the fittest" to "those that are
fitter, survive" preserves the meaning of the original

> and stick with the propositional argument
> Spencer formulated:
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRkRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA444&ci=194,1037,...
>
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Herbert_Spencer
>
> That is to say, it cannot but happen that those individuals whos
> functions are most out of equilibrium with the
> modified aggregate of external forces, will be those to die; and that
> those will survive whos functions happen to be most
> nearly in equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces.
>
> But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the
> fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be
> an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the
> least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual
> destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of
> maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force,
> there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in
> equilibrium with the altered conditions. The Principles of Biology By
> Herbert Spencer
>
> === rephrase ===Spencer wrote: "....That is to say, it cannot but happen that those
>
> individuals whos functions are most out of equilibrium with the
> modified aggregate of external forces, will be those to die; and that
> those will survive whos functions happen to be most nearly in
> equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces...."
>
> rephrase for tautology: "...those individuals out of equilibrium .....
> will ... die; and that those will survive who are in equilibrium..."
>
> rephrase: "...those out of equilibrium die, while those in equilibrium
> will survive..." which reduces to What happens, happens.

And as that rephrases is not preserving the original meaning, that is
they are worth- and pointless.
You make an assertion without offering any argument in support, you
and only you claims that .those out of equilibrium die, while those in
equilibrium
will survive..." reduces to What happens, happens. and no reasons to
accept that "rephrase" are given.

>
> finally: '''"...those out of Fitness(equilibrium) die, while those in
> Fitness(equilibrium) will survive..."''' which reduces to What
> happens, happens. ....................''

Again a pointless rephrase that does not preserve what the original
author said (with other words, it is bearing false witness about him)

Here are (again) several scenarios where Spencer's account would be
false, falsifying your claim that his statement is empirically empty
and can't be falsified:

a); "garden of Eden, pre-fall": we observe that all individuals,and
all traits, remain present, nothing ever dies or diminishes
b) We observe that in a given world, all living beings are identical
clones of each other, all equally fit, and reproduction is always
perfect - nobody is therefore fitter than the other.
c) we observe that in a given world, traits (or species) die out at
fixed intervals, regardless of the environment.
d) we observe that every pair of individuals has exactly two offsping,
and dies after giving birth. - again no fitness differential
e) we observe that in a given world, the environment changes so
rapidly that no accumulation of traits over generations can happen

There are numerous other models that Spencer's account rules out, a
single one is sufficient to prove that his paragraph has empirical
content and could be falsified in principle (by observing any of a-e
above).


backspace

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 4:40:01 PM1/11/12
to
Living beings don't posses a property called fitness. You don't have
more or less fit parts but
only express your attributes. What Spencer, Darwin , Matthew, Hutton
meant was: '... the natural means of competitive survival,preservation
or selection in the struggle for life wherein those with greater
strength outwit those with less strength .... leading to the formation
of new species ....'

With fitness Spencer meant 'more strength relative to the
competitor' .... 'more fitness'....


Burkhard

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 5:13:21 PM1/11/12
to
So? That means that he can be falsified if we observe that nobody has
more strength than any other, as is the situation in my scenario b. It
therefore would falsify Spencer, if we were to observe that this is
the case. One possible, that is not internally inconsistent,
scenario where is theory does not hold is sufficient to prove it is
falsifiable, however odd and counter factual the scenario looks like.

backspace

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 1:26:49 AM1/12/12
to
Spencer used SoF as a short-hand for this battle for survival. The
story though is not falsifiable, because we would be told the same
thing if the other creature won. It is formulated so that it can't be
disputed. NS , differential reproduction, SoF are short hand proxies
for the full argument Spencer provided in his book. SoF must be read
in context.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_authors
showed that the authors all had the same idea basically. Darwin
summarized their positions without giving credit.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 5:36:53 AM1/12/12
to
I have given you above five possible observations that would falsify
Spencer, so that statement is provably wrong

>because we would be told the same
> thing if the other creature won.

That does not make it unfalsifiable, just very general and therefore
more difficult to falsify.
Just as the statement: "Manchester United won the football league
because they won most games" is a more abstract and general
explanation than
"Manchester united won the league because they had invested heavily in
strikers, improved team moral and invented a new strategy", which is
a more detailed explanation. That the explanation "won most games"
would have been valid also if Arsenal, Chelsea or Liverpool had won
the trophy does not make it non-falsifiable. Explanations can come on
different levels of generality or specificity.

. It is formulated so that it can't be
> disputed.

I have given you above 5 ways to dispute it. You calim is hence
falsified.

>NS , differential reproduction, SoF are short hand proxies
> for the full argument Spencer provided in his book. SoF must be read
> in context.
>
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin...
> showed that the authors all had the same idea basically.  Darwin
> summarized their positions without giving credit.

Really only a problem for Ray, who keeps claiming that no naturalist
before Darwin thought about species transmutation. The rest of us
doesn't care a bit.


Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 5:45:13 PM1/12/12
to
Never said any such thing.

Ray

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 6:25:58 PM1/12/12
to
You surprise me! It's how I interpreted post like this:
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4f8bc2217eca80a6?hl=en

"Your initial attempt to support via two quotes from Wilkins 2009 was
pathetic. You did NOT support your claim. Your claim was that science
before 1859 had always accepted mutability of species. As a student in
the history of science I can tell you that there is no dispute among
scholars----NONE. Science came to accept mutability based on Darwin
1859. That's why "The Origin" is often referred to as the book that
shook the world, or the "Darwinian Revolution."

or this:
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7d6e11a7c5213861?hl=en

especially this paragraph:
"You are actually asking me: who, beside myself is a species
immutabilist? I only know of a small handful (including Sean Pitman).
But I assume we are actually many.

Before 1859, no practicing biologist accepted evolution. And natural
selection did not come into universal acceptance until the 1930s and
40s. My claim is that science, before 1859, remains correct."

and lots of others along the same lines, claiming that before Darwin
species fixism ruled. Backspace equally consistently clams the
opposite


and quite a number of others. You seemed to argue pretty consistently
that "no naturalist before darwin " (then typically accepting

backspace

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 3:24:32 AM1/13/12
to
Talking about misquoting. Burkhard I would plead with you to re-
evaluate your position that Jerry Fodor asked a rhetorical question on
LRB in his What Darwin got wrong article. Go to http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2492
and listen for the part where Fodor says the following:

''.... If you scratch two biologists, you get two different
definitions of natural selection .....''

Fodor realized that after saying stuff like :..... by the process of
natural selection one species came to dominate his ecological
niche.... he had not the remotest clue what he actually meant with
natural selection.

This is something I have been trying to point out for the last four
years around here , by showing the subtle ridiculous implications
from off-the cuff remarks people make about natural selection, when
they are not really thinking. This is from YEC to Atheist.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence

''..[[Natural Selection]] mimics intelligence...''- [[Stephen
Meyer]].
If ns mimics intelligence then why can't it mimic stupidity?

''... [[Natural Selection]] is blind...'' - [[Kenneth Miller]]
If ns is blind then why isn't it stupid?


Burkhard

unread,
Jan 13, 2012, 6:02:23 AM1/13/12
to
Unlikely as I gave you a direct quote from the same article where he
answers the question.

Go tohttp://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2492
> and listen for the part where Fodor says the following:
>
> ''.... If you scratch two biologists, you get two different
> definitions of natural selection .....''

So what? One of the way science progresses is by refining definitions
of key concepts - what Lakatos called conceptually progressive
programmes. the language becomes more nuances, able to express more
subtle distinctions, and ultimately results in more refined models.
Since the biologists Fodor is talking about here are research
scientists at the edge of their profession, coming up with new and
better definitions is part of their job description. If their
preferred definition has demonstrable merits, eventually it will
become accepted. Or it turns out that both definitions have merit, but
work better for different applications. If I want to find out how to
manage a wildlife park, I may well need a subtly different definition
of NS than when I'm working on antibiotic resistance in a laboratory
environment, or when I 'm a palaeontologist trying to work out where a
newly discovered fossil fits in etc etc. But all definitions will
share a core meaning, and communication across subject boundaries is
rarely a problem - big nails and small nails are still nails, just
suitable for different jobs.

That still means that all these definitions overlap and share the
majority of their meaning, so communication between scientists is
perfectly possible. In fact, that is what Fodor is implicitly assuming
when he talks about "neo-darwinian" explanations as if they are one
specific type of explanation - that every member of that group has
subtly different ideas about key concepts does not matter a bit.

In the same way as you could say that no two theologians have the same
concept of God, and nonetheless we all understand intuitively that
say an Anabaptist and a Methodist talk about pretty much the same
thing.Only that in theology, it is less common to eventually agree
that one definition is better than the other, or that both do their
job well for different purposes, so instead of emerging consensuses,
you typically have schisms.

Nothing particular to biology, and in fact what Fodor has been doing
in his own discipline. he took the concept of "module" from system
theory, modifies subtly its definition so that he can apply it to his
theory of mind, refines over the course of his life the definition
substantially (so you could say no two Fodor's agree on what modular
means) and by now, scores of his PhD students have refined that
concept over and over (for an overview see e.g. Karmiloff-Smith'
beyond modularity)

In fact, it pretty much summarises what many PhDs these in scientific
disciplines do - they take the established definition from the
literature (or their supervisor) and then suggest a small modification
or refinement.

Nothing problematic, nothing particular to biology, and not certainly
not an argument against a scientific theory.

That is ultimately also what fodor is proposing in the LBR article - a
refinement of the definition that allows to distinguish between
selection of co-extensive traits. Biologists looked at the proposal to
see if it improves the state of the art, and in this case decided to
shake their head at the folly of philosophers who think they can
improve a scientific theory that they barely understand - pointing out
that what Fodor demands as "improvement" is either already standard
practice (multi-causal explanations, non-adaptive explanations such as
genetic drift) or philosophical niceties about the nature of causality
that are of no interest whatsoever for scientists , as they don't
change the empirical content of the theory.

just another day in the office.

>
> Fodor realized that after saying stuff like :..... by the process of
> natural selection one species came to dominate his ecological
> niche....   he had not the remotest clue what he actually meant with
> natural selection.
>
> This is something I have been trying to point out for the last four
> years around here , by showing the subtle ridiculous implications
> from off-the cuff remarks people make about natural selection, when
> they are not really thinking. This is from YEC to Atheist.
>
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence
>
> ''..[[Natural Selection]] mimics intelligence...''- [[Stephen
> Meyer]].
> If ns mimics intelligence then why can't it mimic stupidity?
>
> ''... [[Natural Selection]] is blind...'' - [[Kenneth Miller]]
> If ns is blind then why isn't it stupid?

You probably think you are making a point with these two quotes, but
what it might be eludes me.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages