Last chance to revise the new Tautology FAQ
Friar Broccoli
Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
I don't know the real or full names of many of the people acknowledged
at the end, so if you'd like your real name used then tell me what it
is either here or in a private email to eliasrk(at)gmail.com and I
will modify. Also if you feel you made a contribution that and I did
not acknowledge you (a real possibility) drop me an email and I will
almost certainly add you.
For reference here are all the threads containing discussions:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ee571605fbebcd8b
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/87d5183b29e2a3dd
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/16ba034e778cbbd0
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/419cbe87977e5075
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/47397610ab5cb2e1
however I am pretty sure Google has mis-indexed some posts so they are
effectively lost.
John mentioned keeping the existing FAQ,
located here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
in the archive for reference.
If you (John) would like me to add a pointer to the new location, tell
me what you want and how your original will be designated, and I can
add the link before the FAQ is copied out of my ability to modify it
further.
Note the original is also referenced from here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
If you'd like I could modify copies of that page too, in whatever way
you specify, so it can be copied back into the archive.
Friar Broccoli
http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html
On Sep 16, 8:25 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After more than a year, I have finally gotten around to preparing the
> Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
>
> Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
> If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
>
> I don't know the real or full names of many of the people acknowledged
> at the end, so if you'd like your real name used then tell me what it
> is either here or in a private email to eliasrk(at)gmail.com and I
> will modify. Also if you feel you made a contribution that and I did
> not acknowledge you (a real possibility) drop me an email and I will
> almost certainly add you.
>
> For reference here are all the threads containing discussions:
>
odin
> Forgot to provide a link to the revised FAQ:http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html
>
> On Sep 16, 8:25 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > After more than a year, I have finally gotten around to preparing the
> > Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
>
> > Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
> > If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
>
> > I don't know the real or full names of many of the people acknowledged
> > at the end, so if you'd like your real name used then tell me what it
> > is either here or in a private email to eliasrk(at)gmail.com and I
> > will modify. Also if you feel you made a contribution that and I did
> > not acknowledge you (a real possibility) drop me an email and I will
> > almost certainly add you.
>
> > For reference here are all the threads containing discussions:
>
>
> > however I am pretty sure Google has mis-indexed some posts so they are
> > effectively lost.
>
> > John mentioned keeping the existing FAQ,
> > located here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> > in the archive for reference.
>
> > If you (John) would like me to add a pointer to the new location, tell
> > me what you want and how your original will be designated, and I can
> > add the link before the FAQ is copied out of my ability to modify it
> > further.
>
> > Note the original is also referenced from here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
>
> > If you'd like I could modify copies of that page too, in whatever way
> > you specify, so it can be copied back into the archive
Is the following a tautology?
"Water flowing downhill follows the path of least resistance."
If it is a tautology of some sort, fine... but it certainly is not a
falsehood.
It looks like the same sort of thing as "survival of the fittest".
I fail to see how that is a problem.
-loki
Friar Broccoli
Anything that is not false is true.
Anything that is true is necessarily true.
Anything that is necessarily true is a tautology.
> It looks like the same sort of thing as "survival of the fittest".
>
> I fail to see how that is a problem.
That's because your sight is distorted by atheistic/evolutionist
lenses.
>
> -loki
-True Christian.
cassandra
I don't understand why you are asking your question. Could you
enlighten me?
odin
Sorry. I thought it was obvious. I asked the following question: Is
the statement "Water flowing downhill follows the path of least
resistance" a tautology?
I gave this as an example that is analogous to the so called "survival
of the fittest tautology", where the survival of those who are better
equipped for surviving are by definition already the "fittest". In
other words, begging the question, and all that. I wanted to give this
as an example that would, by the same sort of arguments, be a
tautology, but also provide an example that was also obviously true,
even to a creationist. So, water flowing downhill follows the path of
least resistance, and, by definition, the path of least resistance
would be exactly that path.
I am not sure why I need to go into this much detail over something so
obvious, but perhaps I should add that "tautology" is not a dirty
word. If RM+NS ends up being framed as a tautology by some true
statement, such as such as in SOF, then so be it. As I said, it
certainly does not make the TOE a falsehood. At least not for that
reason.
Does that make sense yet?
As a side note, I think this whole SOF/tautology canard results from
switching from a rhetorical tautology definition to a logical
tautology definition half way through the argument. Creationist tend
to do that sort of scatter-brained type of thing without even knowing
it.
-loki
air
> Forgot to provide a link to the revised FAQ:http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html
>
> On Sep 16, 8:25 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > After more than a year, I have finally gotten around to preparing the
> > Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
>
> > Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
> > If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
>
> > I don't know the real or full names of many of the people acknowledged
> > at the end, so if you'd like your real name used then tell me what it
> > is either here or in a private email to eliasrk(at)gmail.com and I
> > will modify. Also if you feel you made a contribution that and I did
> > not acknowledge you (a real possibility) drop me an email and I will
> > almost certainly add you.
>
> > For reference here are all the threads containing discussions:
>
>
> > however I am pretty sure Google has mis-indexed some posts so they are
> > effectively lost.
>
> > John mentioned keeping the existing FAQ,
> > located here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> > in the archive for reference.
>
> > If you (John) would like me to add a pointer to the new location, tell
> > me what you want and how your original will be designated, and I can
> > add the link before the FAQ is copied out of my ability to modify it
> > further.
>
> > Note the original is also referenced from here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
>
> > If you'd like I could modify copies of that page too, in whatever way
> > you specify, so it can be copied back into the archive.
I did a quick search and came up with this ref (behind paywall) that
predicts ice at 38 degrees C - definitely not cold ice; might be
useful in showing how some tautologies are subject to falsification,
even 'evidently true' ones.
http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v132/i12/p124511_s1?isAuthorized=no
Air
odin
Cool... very cool... well, actually, not that cool when you think
about it. But still very cool.
cassandra
That is a tautological statement. A poor way to start.
> I asked the following question: Is
> the statement "Water flowing downhill follows the path of least
> resistance" a tautology?
>
> I gave this as an example that is analogous to the so called "survival
> of the fittest tautology", where the survival of those who are better
> equipped for surviving are by definition already the "fittest". In
> other words, begging the question, and all that. I wanted to give this
> as an example that would, by the same sort of arguments, be a
> tautology, but also provide an example that was also obviously true,
> even to a creationist. So, water flowing downhill follows the path of
> least resistance, and, by definition, the path of least resistance
> would be exactly that path.
> I am not sure why I need to go into this much detail over something so
> obvious, but perhaps I should add that "tautology" is not a dirty
> word. If RM+NS ends up being framed as a tautology by some true
> statement, such as such as in SOF, then so be it. As I said, it
> certainly does not make the TOE a falsehood. At least not for that
> reason.
>
> Does that make sense yet?
>
> As a side note, I think this whole SOF/tautology canard results from
> switching from a rhetorical tautology definition to a logical
> tautology definition half way through the argument. Creationist tend
> to do that sort of scatter-brained type of thing without even knowing
> it.
From your reply I infer that you believe whatever is obvious to you
should be obvious to everyone else. My experience shows that is also
something Creationists like to say.
You have worked hard to establish a certain image in this newsgroup.
Skepticism of your intent is one of the effects of that image, and so
you will likely get more questions that you think are obvious, but in
fact turn out not to be. Sorry to bother you.
John Harshman
Did you try reading the tautology FAQ to see if that point had already
been made?
John S. Wilkins
...
> > John mentioned keeping the existing FAQ,
> > located here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> > in the archive for reference.
> >
> > If you (John) would like me to add a pointer to the new location, tell
> > me what you want and how your original will be designated, and I can
> > add the link before the FAQ is copied out of my ability to modify it
> > further.
Do two things: Add a pointer to the old FAQ at a new URL and use the
current URL for your new FAQ; and add a paragraph at the top of the old
FAQ that points to the new FAQ, so nobody thinks it is the latest
version.
That way, if anyone has linked to the old FAQ they will now be taken to
the new one, as is appropriate.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
odin
> You have worked hard to establish a certain image in this newsgroup.
> Skepticism of your intent is one of the effects of that image, and so
> you will likely get more questions that you think are obvious, but in
> fact turn out not to be. Sorry to bother you
Good point Cassandra. Sorry, I do shape shift a bit. I have about
three very different avatars going on, here and in real life. I tried
using different newsgroup nyms here, one per alter ego. DIG had a
problem with it, so I am back to just one. I think that some would
like to be able to kill file one of my characters and perhaps not the
others. Perhaps DIG should rethink that. What ever.
And Cassandra, please don't be sorry to bother me. That's what I'm
here for. To be honest for a moment... I actually do enjoy your posts.
Have a nice day...
-loki
odin
Nope. Never looked at it. I would expect an obvious (sorry again
cassandra) point like that would be in there. There are only so many
thinkgs you cansay on the topic, and that would clearly be one of
them. If it is not a point in that article, don't matter... I actually
don't care much about it.
J. J. Lodder
> On Sep 16, 9:31 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 8:31 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Forgot to provide a link to the revised FAQ:http://www.talkorigins.org/san
dbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html
> >
> > > On Sep 16, 8:25 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > After more than a year, I have finally gotten around to preparing the
> > > > Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
> >
> > > > Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
> > > > If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
> >
> > > > I don't know the real or full names of many of the people acknowledged
> > > > at the end, so if you'd like your real name used then tell me what it
> > > > is either here or in a private email to eliasrk(at)gmail.com and I
> > > > will modify. Also if you feel you made a contribution that and I did
> > > > not acknowledge you (a real possibility) drop me an email and I will
> > > > almost certainly add you.
> >
> > > > For reference here are all the threads containing discussions:
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ee57160...
> >
> > > > however I am pretty sure Google has mis-indexed some posts so they are
> > > > effectively lost.
> >
> > > > John mentioned keeping the existing FAQ,
> > > > located here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> > > > in the archive for reference.
> >
> > > > If you (John) would like me to add a pointer to the new location, tell
> > > > me what you want and how your original will be designated, and I can
> > > > add the link before the FAQ is copied out of my ability to modify it
> > > > further.
> >
> > > > Note the original is also referenced from here:http://www.talkorigins.or
g/faqs/evolphil.html
> >
> > > > If you'd like I could modify copies of that page too, in whatever way
> > > > you specify, so it can be copied back into the archive
> >
> > Is the following a tautology?
> >
> > "Water flowing downhill follows the path of least resistance."
> >
> > If it is a tautology of some sort, fine... but it certainly is not a
> > falsehood.
>
> Anything that is not false is true.
Brouwer will get you!,
Jan
odin
Nope. It is a good way to start. Unless you missed my point again. My
point is that tautologies are just fine. So why not start with one?
Sheesh.
odin
Would that be false dichotomy? After all, anything that is a not false
dichotomy is a true true dichotomy. Ummm forget it...
cassandra
Or you missed my point. FWIW I deliberately phrased my question so
you could just say no and avoid exactly the kind of reply you gave.
It seems you're spending a fair amount of time on a point you say you
don't really care much about.
odin
No.
> It seems you're spending a fair amount of time on a point you say you
> don't really care much about.
I do care about the point. The only thing I recall saying I did not
care about is whether the point was mentioned in the associated FAQ.
Am I wrong? I could have said I do not care about something else. Not
100% sure. But then again, I don't really care.
John Harshman
So all this is just to give your fingers some exercise in between bouts
of more private handwork?
Friar Broccoli
I'm not sure your statement is a Tautology, but assuming it is then in
the the section of the FAQ titled "Are tautological statements
verifiable?" it would be in the "contingent" class, along with cold
ice, and that lubricating grease that Harshperson seems to think you
overuse.
John Harshman
> I'm not sure your statement is a Tautology, but assuming it is then in
> the the section of the FAQ titled "Are tautological statements
> verifiable?" it would be in the "contingent" class, along with cold
> ice, and that lubricating grease that Harshperson seems to think you
> overuse.
The topic is "Last chance to revise the new Tautology FAQ". That would
seem to require 1) reading the new Tautology FAQ and 2) critiquing it.
Saying something you think is fun that's loosely centered on the word
"tautology" doesn't follow that program. I really don't think it's too
much to ask.
Friar Broccoli
.
I agree. I was trying to both encourage him to read the faq and
inject a bit of humor. Your comment about "private handwork" seemed
to be something I could work^H^H^H^Hplay with.
John Harshman
odin
OK... I will look at then.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > John mentioned keeping the existing FAQ,
> > > located here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> > > in the archive for reference.
>
> > > If you (John) would like me to add a pointer to the new location, tell
> > > me what you want and how your original will be designated, and I can
> > > add the link before the FAQ is copied out of my ability to modify it
> > > further.
.
> Do two things: Add a pointer to the old FAQ at a new URL and use the
> current URL for your new FAQ; and add a paragraph at the top of the old
> FAQ that points to the new FAQ, so nobody thinks it is the latest
> version.
OK, here is the new FAQ with a pointer to the old (that NOW goes to an
error page) at the end:
http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/Ready4Use/Tautology.html
Here is the old FAQ with a pointer to the new (that NOW goes to its
original self):
http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/Ready4Use/Previous_Tautology_FAQ.html
Are you going to notify Wesley?
Also just in case you were wondering the "T" gif here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pictures/letters/T.gif
is an empty file (a corruption I presume).
Note that the "H" gif is fine:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pictures/letters/H.gif
John S. Wilkins
ivar
I suspect that many readers would abandon this article before
finishing it.
At the end of this post I suggest a shorter Tautology FAQ that may be
more readable. However, I want to make a few comments about tautology
first. My concern is that the current proposed Tautology FAQ is
unnecessarily controversial.
As noted in the proposed FAQ, there are two kinds of tautologies:
Semantic: saying the same thing twice (or more)
Logic: a statement that is necessarily true
To the best of my knowledge, there are three kinds of logical
tautologies that are commonly encountered:
a. Those constructed and manipulated by professional logisticians,
e.g., people concerned with the foundations of mathematics.
b. Definitions. A definition has the form "A is B," for example,
"all husbands are married men." Definitions are true because the
people using the definitions agree that they are true.
c. Mathematical structures. There is probably a better term for
this. An example of a mathematical structure might be Euclidean
geometry. Many theorems can be derived from a small set of axioms,
all of which are true assuming that the axioms are true. Scientists
commonly construct mathematical structures. An example would be a
mathematical model of the solar system based on Newton's Laws.
These comments apply to the current proposed Tautology FAQ in two
ways.
First, tautologies like "All husbands are married men" are not
semantic tautologies as stated in the summary section; they are
logical tautologies.
Second, the question of whether equations are tautological depends on
what kind of model they are used in. If they are used in a purely
mathematical models, then, arguably, they are tautological. Purely
mathematical models can be used to explore the mathematical
implications of the model structure. However, if the equations are
used in what Nancy Cartwright and others call "representative models,"
then the equations are not. A representative model is intended to
represent the real world. It is tested by the predictions it makes. A
representative model of the solar system that is based on Newton's
Laws will not accurately predict the orbit of Mercury. You need a
model based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to do that.
The equations in representative models are not tautological because
the model may be false. In short, equations like F=ma are not
examples of a tautology that has been falsified.
With regard to Coulter's presumed Semantic tautology:
I am not persuaded that Ann Coulter's reference to a "circular
statement" was meant to imply that the SOF was a semantic tautology.
I suspect the circle that she had in mind was that the fittest survive
because the survivors are, by definition, the fittest. A semantic
tautology is repetitive but is not usually circular.
Regardless, assuming that Coulter meant a logical tautology seems
prudent. To do otherwise is to risk the accusation that Talk-Origins
deliberately misrepresented her words (even if it didn't). Also,
readers may get distracted from the main message of the Tautology FAQ
article if they start to ponder whether Coulter really meant a
semantic tautology or a logical tautology.
The proposed Tautology FAQ discusses "contingent" tautologies. I
don't understand the need for this discussion.
A draft of a shorter version of a Tautology FAQ that may be good
enough is the following:
A recent version of the tautology argument was made by Ann Coulter who
wrote:
"The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but a
circular statement: Through the process of natural selection, the
"fittest" survive. Who are the "fittest"? The ones who survive! Why
look - it happens every time! The "survival of the fittest" would be a
joke if it weren't part of the belief system of a fanatical cult
infesting the Scientific Community. The beauty of having a scientific
theory that's a tautology is that it can't be disproved."
Coulter is asserting that the idea of natural selection reduces to the
idea that:
"The survivors are the survivors."
This statement is a tautology. In logic, a tautology is a statement
that is necessarily true, that cannot be false. Statements of the
form "S are S" are always true regardless of the value of "S" and,
hence, are tautologies.
The problem with Coulter's argument is that Darwin's idea of natural
selection differs from Coulter's. Darwin wrote:
"This preservation of favourable variations, and the destruction
of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or the Survival of
the Fittest."
The "fittest" in Darwin's version are those with "favourable
variations." This is different from Coulter's definition that the
fittest are "the ones who survive." Darwin hypothesized that
organisms with "favourable variations" are more likely to survive and
reproduce. A favorable variation might be faster running speed or
better camouflage (e.g., an insect that looks like a leaf).
Possession of a favourable variation does not guarantee survival --
the fastest zebra might get killed by lightning -- but it does make
survival and reproduction more likely.
Darwin's version of natural selection is not a tautology. Nothing in
logic requires that "favourable variations" must exist. And, nothing
in logic requires that "favourable variations" must be inherited,
which is necessary if evolution is to be effective. Further, one can
test whether a particular variation results in longer life and more
offspring, i.e., whether Darwin's version of natural selection works.
Coulter is wrong. Darwin's version of natural selection is "a
scientific theory" that can be "disproved."
Ivar
John S. Wilkins
No, I disagree. There is no logical equivalence here; there is merely
definitional stipulation; that is not a logical point. It's like saying
"A = B"; not a tautology in formal language, but an axiom.
...
Ray Martinez
How? (You stopped opining at the most crucial moment.)
Matters of logic are NOT falsifiable. Natural selection is true by
definition. Natural selection is NOT falsifiable.
Ray
Burkhard
It is in his text. Finding that traits are not inheritable would
falsify it, as just one example. Finding that every individual has the
same number of offspring too.
Friar Broccoli
Thanks for writing. I was becoming really depressed by
the lack of input.
I will come back to it at the end, but at first flush, I
REALLY LIKE the idea of using the Darwin quote as a
justification for substituting "favourable variations" for
"the fittest", so that your:
"The survivors are the survivors."
becomes:
"The survivors are those with favourable variations."
On the other hand, I can see some (possibly serious)
problems with it, which I will return to at the end.
Hopefully some of the sharper minds here can help me sort
out the issues.
On Sep 21, 6:44 am, ivar <ylvis...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The proposed Tautology FAQ is long, complicated, and hard to follow.
> I suspect that many readers would abandon this article before
> finishing it.
I completely agree. Indeed most creationists are
unlikely to start it, let alone finish. It is for this
reason that I have placed (what I see as) the simplest
and most compelling arguments at the beginning and moved
the more difficult ones to the end.
It is also the reason that I have done my best to present
short summaries as titles before every section and as one
or two liners at the end.
> At the end of this post I suggest a shorter Tautology FAQ that may be
> more readable.
I don't think that length in and of itself is a problem,
as long as the reader is not caused to fear beginning to
read because he is faced with a large solid block of
impenetrable prose. Specifically I am hopeful that the
title:
"Most Creationists agree that the Fittest Survive"
near the beginning will get the reader at least to the
end of that section, which, in my view contains the
argument which is by far the most powerful: namely that
creationists are arguing against a position they already
accept.
I disagree with limiting the arguments for two additional
reasons:
1) We all see things differently. An argument which
seems compelling to me will simply not connect to the
personal experience or world view of someone else and
vice versa. For this reason we should, within reason,
present all the logical arguments we can see.
2) The people reading the FAQ will almost never be
creationists, rather they will be evolutionists who
have got themselves into an argument with a
creationist, which they do not know how to handle.
People in that situation will usually need a very
thorough understanding of all aspects of the issue
under discussion. If we give them a Coles notes
version, the creationist will almost certainly come
back with a variant of the argument that our
evolutionist will then be at a loss to handle.
> However, I want to make a few comments about tautology
> first. My concern is that the current proposed Tautology FAQ is
> unnecessarily controversial.
>
> As noted in the proposed FAQ, there are two kinds of tautologies:
> Semantic: saying the same thing twice (or more)
> Logic: a statement that is necessarily true
>
> To the best of my knowledge, there are three kinds of logical
> tautologies that are commonly encountered:
> a. Those constructed and manipulated by professional logisticians,
> e.g., people concerned with the foundations of mathematics.
> b. Definitions. A definition has the form "A is B," for example,
> "all husbands are married men." Definitions are true because the
> people using the definitions agree that they are true.
> c. Mathematical structures. There is probably a better term for
> this. An example of a mathematical structure might be Euclidean
> geometry. Many theorems can be derived from a small set of axioms,
> all of which are true assuming that the axioms are true. Scientists
> commonly construct mathematical structures. An example would be a
> mathematical model of the solar system based on Newton's Laws.
I imagine that philosophers have dreamed up all sorts of
ways of dividing up tautologies. I know just enough
about the question to know that if I walk into that
forest, I won't be coming out. All I needed to do was
establish that there are two (or more) that do not have
the same meaning. (More below)
> These comments apply to the current proposed Tautology FAQ in two
> ways.
>
> First, tautologies like "All husbands are married men" are not
> semantic tautologies as stated in the summary section; they are
> logical tautologies.
As Wilkins has already pointed out semantic and logical
tautologies are not mutually exclusive sets anymore than
woman and human are. So, most of us will agree that,
"she is not a human, she is a woman" is not logically
valid.
> Second, the question of whether equations are tautological depends on
> what kind of model they are used in. If they are used in a purely
> mathematical models, then, arguably, they are tautological. Purely
> mathematical models can be used to explore the mathematical
> implications of the model structure. However, if the equations are
> used in what Nancy Cartwright and others call "representative models,"
> then the equations are not. A representative model is intended to
> represent the real world. It is tested by the predictions it makes. A
> representative model of the solar system that is based on Newton's
> Laws will not accurately predict the orbit of Mercury. You need a
> model based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to do that.
> The equations in representative models are not tautological because
> the model may be false. In short, equations like F=ma are not
> examples of a tautology that has been falsified.
First, I did not say F=ma *is* a tautology, I framed the
argument more as _suppose we accept that mathematical
expressions (including the SoF version) are tautologies
for the sake of argument_.
I then said it had been *partially* falsified by
relativity and drew a parallel with partial falsification
of SoF by drift, thereby putting SoF on the same footing
as F=ma.
As far as I can tell this is a compelling argument.
> With regard to Coulter's presumed Semantic tautology:
>
> I am not persuaded that Ann Coulter's reference to a "circular
> statement" was meant to imply that the SOF was a semantic tautology.
> I suspect the circle that she had in mind was that the fittest survive
> because the survivors are, by definition, the fittest. A semantic
> tautology is repetitive but is not usually circular.
The interpretation of Coulter you presented further down
was:
"The survivors are the survivors."
which is both repetitive and circular. Can you provide an
example of a repetitive tautology that is not circular?
> Regardless, assuming that Coulter meant a logical tautology seems
> prudent. To do otherwise is to risk the accusation that Talk-Origins
> deliberately misrepresented her words (even if it didn't). Also,
> readers may get distracted from the main message of the Tautology FAQ
> article if they start to ponder whether Coulter really meant a
> semantic tautology or a logical tautology.
I completely disagree that this is the prudent path.
Coulter's statement is incoherent. If a creationist
believes that a logical argument can be extracted from
her wording then they must show it. There is no reason
why we should freely grant that the statement makes any
sense at all, since it clearly does not.
Note also that I did not assert that: a "circular
statement" *IS* a semantic tautology, I said it is "an
apparent reference to the semantic meaning". If a
creationist wants to try and show that a "circular
statement" can be understood as a logical tautology, I
wish him good luck.
> The proposed Tautology FAQ discusses "contingent" tautologies. I
> don't understand the need for this discussion.
Coulter's quote ends as:
"The beauty of having a scientific theory that's a
tautology is that it can't be disproved."
The discussion demonstrates that contingent tautologies
can be disproved, so her statement is false. However,
thanks to this comment from you I now see that I did not
draw that connection clearly out for all readers. I will
correct that. Thanks
> A draft of a shorter version of a Tautology FAQ that may be good
> enough is the following:
>
> A recent version of the tautology argument was made by Ann Coulter who
> wrote:
>
> "The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but a
> circular statement: Through the process of natural selection, the
> "fittest" survive. Who are the "fittest"? The ones who survive! Why
> look - it happens every time! The "survival of the fittest" would be a
> joke if it weren't part of the belief system of a fanatical cult
> infesting the Scientific Community. The beauty of having a scientific
> theory that's a tautology is that it can't be disproved."
>
> Coulter is asserting that the idea of natural selection reduces to the
> idea that:
>
> "The survivors are the survivors."
First note that Coulter did not say this. This is
substituting our words for her words. This creates a
straw man argument, which we are arguably presenting for
no reason other than to have an easier target to shoot at.
And it is a ridiculously easy target.
All we need to do is just say no:
"The survivors are the ones with the longest fir."
"The survivors are the ones that dig the best holes."
"The survivors are the ones that go longest without water."
in short
"The survivors are the ones with the most favorable traits"
which may be why Coulter tried a more complex formulation.
We must challenge her argument as she presented it.
> This statement is a tautology. In logic, a tautology is a statement
> that is necessarily true, that cannot be false. Statements of the
> form "S are S" are always true regardless of the value of "S" and,
> hence, are tautologies.
>
> The problem with Coulter's argument is that Darwin's idea of natural
> selection differs from Coulter's. Darwin wrote:
>
> "This preservation of favourable variations, and the destruction
> of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or the Survival of
> the Fittest."
>
> The "fittest" in Darwin's version are those with "favourable
> variations." This is different from Coulter's definition that the
> fittest are "the ones who survive." Darwin hypothesized that
> organisms with "favourable variations" are more likely to survive and
> reproduce. A favorable variation might be faster running speed or
> better camouflage (e.g., an insect that looks like a leaf).
> Possession of a favourable variation does not guarantee survival --
> the fastest zebra might get killed by lightning -- but it does make
> survival and reproduction more likely.
I see what I think is a serious problem with the
expression "favourable variations" which is that it can
easily be misconstrued to mean favourable_new_variants
while NS/SoF refers to existing variation, not the coming
into being of new variation.
This problem is particularly evident in your phrase: "The
"fittest" in Darwin's version are those with "favourable
variations."" which really seems to refer to new
variants.
This would be a mess to untangle and generate a lengthy
digression. Unfortunately Darwin did not say "favourable
traits", which would not generate this confusion.
> Darwin's version of natural selection is not a tautology. Nothing in
> logic requires that "favourable variations" must exist. And, nothing
> in logic requires that "favourable variations" must be inherited,
> which is necessary if evolution is to be effective.
.
> Further, one can test whether a particular variation results
> in longer life and more offspring, i.e., whether Darwin's
> version of natural selection works.
This statement would be a bitch to defend in a real
argument. I think - creationists already agree that
favourable variants are selected - because it is so
obvious, is the easier and more effective route.
> Coulter is wrong. Darwin's version of natural selection is "a
> scientific theory" that can be "disproved."
Essentially this paragraph (that begins "Darwin's version
...") makes the same points as are made in the second
half of the section titled "Survival of Characteristics,
not Individuals", however, right now your wording here
seems better in places. At the very least I like the
general term "favourable traits". I will probably do
something like add a new title with those words and
probably adjust the wording that follows to bring out
your point.
However, I'm really tired right now, so a decision will
have to wait till Sunday after a good nights sleep.
Hopefully others will have helpful comments to help
clarify my thinking.
Thanks Again;
Bill
> The proposed Tautology FAQ is long, complicated, and hard to follow.
> I suspect that many readers would abandon this article before
> finishing it.
>
I agree. It is too long, and too hard to understand, at least for
anyone who would have been tempted by the "NS is a tautology" argument
in the first place.
I agree with you, Ivar, that the best response to that argument is
that the goal of understanding a particular instance of NS is to
understand what "fitness" means, in the specific case, apart from
differential reproductive success. Does it mean, faster, smarter,
beaks better suited to an unexploited food source?
To say that those who leave more offspring are fittest by definition
is just a not very interesting definition. To claim that those who
leave more descendants are fittest, using some other definition of
fitness is a substantial, falsifiable claim which opens up all sorts
of research questions for the future. It also opens up the possibility
that we'll be stumped, in any given case, or that some interesting
structure is not an adaptation. There is plenty of content in
"survival of the fittest."
Friar Broccoli
Would two introductory paragraphs that would encapsulate the argument
vaguely as follows meet the need you see?
_________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION - Fitness refers to Adaptive Traits
Creationists commonly formulate the Tautology argument somewhat as
follows: The Theory of evolution is built around the phrase "Survival
of the Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of "fitness" is the
survival rate, this phrase actually reduces to "Survival of the
survivors" which is circular and thus an empty tautology.
While it is certainly true that survival rates are the measure of
fitness, what is actually being measured are the survival rates due to
_adaptive_traits_ or _favourable_characteristics_. Thus SoF reduces
not to an empty tautology but to a phrase like "Survival of those with
the most adaptive characteristics" like the most flexible immune
system, the most efficient digestive system, or the sharpest hearing
etc. each of which can be studied.
then some sort of transitional phrase to the remainder of the FAQ
_________________________________________________________________
cassandra
<...>
> then some sort of transitional phrase to the remainder of the FAQ
Do creationists believe in transitional phrases? If you identify a
transitional phrase, do creationists say that means you have to
identify two more transistional phrases?
Just asking.
cassandra
> Hi Ivar;
>
> Thanks for writing. I was becoming really depressed by
> the lack of input.
<snip for brevity>
To help relieve your depression, I am willing to add a few comments:
For people like me, I am unfamiliar with the subtleties of the
arguments about the meaning and use of tautology, or even why it's
important enough to justify a separate chapter in the TO FAQ. So like
you I am uncomfortable with going into that forest, which is why I
didn't until now.
I see the FAQ makes a distinction between the semantic and logical
definitions. I would like to point out that in the semantic case, its
modern use infers a negative sense, in that the statement is
unnecessarily repetitive, or worse, that the statement is devious, in
that it suggests additional information is being provided. This is
the sense that Anne Coulter uses it in the FAQ's quote.
Also my impression is Anne Coulter conflates "tautology" and
"circular". The two are related but not the same. I realize t's not
the FAQ's job to explain Anne Coulter's semantic mistake, but it might
make a clearer case if the FAQ made explicit the distinction between
tautology and circularity.
Also, I have a question that the FAQ touched on. Is it true that all
logical and correct deductions are logical tautologies? Is is true
that all logical inductions and abductions are not logical
tautologies?
Finally, as a total aside, I am really surprised to see Darwin's
justification for metaphorical brevity in scientific discussions
included in a TO FAQ credited to Robert Harshman. My impression is TO
generally and Harshman specifically make a point of pouncing on non-
precise phraseology, to the point of occasionally overwhelmin the
substance of thel discussion. Does this reflect a new editorial
policy for TO, or is this a special case in deference to Darwin?
Bill
Yes, this sounds fine. Thank you.
Friar Broccoli
> Darwin's version of natural selection is not a tautology. Nothing in
> logic requires that "favourable variations" must exist.
Thank you very much for forcing me to see that ~fitness as a reference
to specific characteristics that are not logically necessary~ is
central to this discussion. Thanks also to Ray, Burkhard and Bill for
pushing to make sure the point sank in.
Many others have made the same point. In fact the proposed FAQ
already says: "That "fitness" is intended to refer to specific
characteristics is the core to understanding that SoF is not in any
sense a tautology" but the statement is buried too deep in the text to
be found by most readers.
Friar Broccoli
> On Sep 21, 9:18 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ivar;
>
> > Thanks for writing. I was becoming really depressed by
> > the lack of input.
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> To help relieve your depression, I am willing to add a few comments:
>
> For people like me, I am unfamiliar with the subtleties of the
> arguments about the meaning and use of tautology, or even why it's
> important enough to justify a separate chapter in the TO FAQ. So like
> you I am uncomfortable with going into that forest, which is why I
> didn't until now.
.
> I see the FAQ makes a distinction between the semantic and logical
> definitions. I would like to point out that in the semantic case, its
> modern use infers a negative sense, in that the statement is
> unnecessarily repetitive, or worse, that the statement is devious, in
> that it suggests additional information is being provided. This is
> the sense that Anne Coulter uses it in the FAQ's quote.
First, Coulter's comments are incoherent to the point that I am not
sure that we are referring to anything when ascribing a "sense"
meaning or intent to these comments made by her. I don't mean this as
a gratuitous insult (though insult it is), I really am not sure what
it means to talk about her intent or "sense" here.
When working on this question last year, I spent a lot of time looking
at definitions and descriptions of "tautology" and do not recall any
formal (or even informal) statements to the effect that tautologies
are devious - although I do vaguely remember some tautological forms
used to "prove" the existence of God - which Wilkins told me were
irrelevant and asked me to cut. In any case, it seems to me to be
inappropriate to
speculate on the possible use of a cultural meaning, by Coulter
without compelling supporting evidence, and even then I'm not sure we
should go there, since she presumably "intended" to make a logical
argument.
> Also my impression is Anne Coulter conflates "tautology" and
> "circular". The two are related but not the same. I realize t's not
> the FAQ's job to explain Anne Coulter's semantic mistake, but it might
> make a clearer case if the FAQ made explicit the distinction between
> tautology and circularity.
I have long argued that we cannot have a FAQ on the "tautology
argument" without a discussion of tautologies, however I am pretty
sure that most people here think that what I have presented on
tautologies themselves is mostly unnecessary hot air. Since I am
going to make more modifications to address Ivar's and Bill's
objections, I am therefore going to cut it at least a bit more.
As far as I can see circularity is a from of repetition, and thus
meets one of the definitions of tautology - the one I labeled
"Semantic".
> Also, I have a question that the FAQ touched on. Is it true that all
> logical and correct deductions are logical tautologies? Is is true
> that all logical inductions and abductions are not logical
> tautologies?
I thought about these questions for several minutes and became
confused.
> Finally, as a total aside, I am really surprised to see Darwin's
> justification for metaphorical brevity in scientific discussions
> included in a TO FAQ credited to Robert Harshman. My impression is TO
> generally and Harshman specifically make a point of pouncing on non-
> precise phraseology, to the point of occasionally overwhelmin the
> substance of thel discussion. Does this reflect a new editorial
> policy for TO, or is this a special case in deference to Darwin?
John (Robert!?) makes a clean distinction between references to facts
and statements describing those facts. NS and SoF are references to
part of TOE; they are NOT statements that fully and accurately
describe those aspects of the theory. (This is part of the reason
that it is not appropriate to attack the apparent content of the
REFERENCE, as the tautological argument does.) John comes down on us
when we make false statements about the CONTENT of facts or theories.
cassandra
> On Sep 23, 3:02 am, cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 9:18 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi Ivar;
>
> > > Thanks for writing. I was becoming really depressed by
> > > the lack of input.
>
> > <snip for brevity>
>
> > To help relieve your depression, I am willing to add a few comments:
>
> > For people like me, I am unfamiliar with the subtleties of the
> > arguments about the meaning and use of tautology, or even why it's
> > important enough to justify a separate chapter in the TO FAQ. So like
> > you I am uncomfortable with going into that forest, which is why I
> > didn't until now.
>
> > definitions. I would like to point out that in the semantic case, its
> > modern use infers a negative sense, in that the statement is
> > unnecessarily repetitive, or worse, that the statement is devious, in
> > that it suggests additional information is being provided. This is
> > the sense that Anne Coulter uses it in the FAQ's quote.
>
> First, Coulter's comments are incoherent to the point that I am not
> sure that we are referring to anything when ascribing a "sense"
> meaning or intent to these comments made by her. I don't mean this as
> a gratuitous insult (though insult it is), I really am not sure what
> it means to talk about her intent or "sense" here.
I don't see that the FAQ treats Anne Coulter's statement as so
incoherent it is beyond comprehension, else why would it bother to use
it? Further, the FAQ goes on to describe how her statement swtiches
from the semantic sense to the logical sense, and even makes a joke
about it. So the FAQ in fact infers it has some sense of Anne
Coulter's sense. It should be easy enough for you to refer to her
sense here in the same way the FAQ does there.
> When working on this question last year, I spent a lot of time looking
> at definitions and descriptions of "tautology" and do not recall any
> formal (or even informal) statements to the effect that tautologies
> are devious - although I do vaguely remember some tautological forms
> used to "prove" the existence of God - which Wilkins told me were
> irrelevant and asked me to cut. In any case, it seems to me to be
> inappropriate to
> speculate on the possible use of a cultural meaning, by Coulter
> without compelling supporting evidence, and even then I'm not sure we
> should go there, since she presumably "intended" to make a logical
> argument.
You misrepresent my point in three important ways. First, I
explicitly referred to the semantic definition. Second, I am
suggesting it is Anne Coulter who infers that SoF is deceptive Third,
I make no reference to any cultural meaning.
I do not dispute that you spent a lot of time looking up definitions
and descriptions. I'm not sure I understand why you even bring it
up. But I am not the only one who says this:
From Wiktionary:
tautological
2.using repetition or excessive wordiness; pleonastic or
circumlocutionary
and
circumlocutionary
1.Articulated in a roundabout manner; tautological or with repetitive
language.
The old man's rambling yarn was circumlocutionary.
2.(of speech) Evasive, avoiding difficult questions or key points.
The politician was being circumlocutionary; he refused to answer any
of the journalist's questions.
There are many sources that give similar definitions.
And even if you think that point is arguable, you make no mention of
my other point, that the semantic (not cultural) use infers an
unnecessary repetition. Unless you think repetition is always
unnecessary, and my point is itself tautological.
If you think the FAQ doesn't need to mention these points, then just
say so. There's no need to belabor the point.
> > Also my impression is Anne Coulter conflates "tautology" and
> > "circular". The two are related but not the same. I realize t's not
> > the FAQ's job to explain Anne Coulter's semantic mistake, but it might
> > make a clearer case if the FAQ made explicit the distinction between
> > tautology and circularity.
>
> I have long argued that we cannot have a FAQ on the "tautology
> argument" without a discussion of tautologies, however I am pretty
> sure that most people here think that what I have presented on
> tautologies themselves is mostly unnecessary hot air. Since I am
> going to make more modifications to address Ivar's and Bill's
> objections, I am therefore going to cut it at least a bit more.
>
> As far as I can see circularity is a from of repetition, and thus
> meets one of the definitions of tautology - the one I labeled
> "Semantic".
As I said, they are related, but they are not the same. Again, I am
not the only one who says this.
From Wiktionary:
Nouncircular argument (plural circular arguments)
1.(philosophy, logic) An argument which commits the logical fallacy of
assuming what it is attempting to prove.
Certainly you see that one can be repetitive without assuming
anything. My understanding of circularity is that it's closer to self-
evident than tautological.
Once again, if you think the FAQ doesn't need to mention the
difference, then just say so. There's no need to belabor the point.
> > Also, I have a question that the FAQ touched on. Is it true that all
> > logical and correct deductions are logical tautologies? Is is true
> > that all logical inductions and abductions are not logical
> > tautologies?
>
> I thought about these questions for several minutes and became
> confused.
And yet you care not to mention what you are confused about. I take
that to mean you think the questions aren't worth your effort beyond
your comment to that effect.
For those who might think otherwise:
From the new TO FAQ: Definition of tautology:
Logic: a statement that is necessarily true.
From Wiktionary:
deduction:
(logic)a. a process of reasoning that moves from the general to the
specific, in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are
true.
b. a conclusion reached by this process
induction:
(logic) the derivation of general principles from specific instances
abduction:
4.(logic) A syllogism or form of argument in which the major is
evident, but the minor is only probable.
I interpret the above to mean that all true logical deductions are
tautologies, in that they are necessarily true, but inductions and
abductions may have instances where they are not true, and so are not
necessarily true, and so are not tautologies. I asked because I
thought you might be interested in giving your opinion about it. You
have disabused me.
> > Finally, as a total aside, I am really surprised to see Darwin's
> > justification for metaphorical brevity in scientific discussions
> > included in a TO FAQ credited to Robert Harshman. My impression is TO
> > generally and Harshman specifically make a point of pouncing on non-
> > precise phraseology, to the point of occasionally overwhelmin the
> > substance of thel discussion. Does this reflect a new editorial
> > policy for TO, or is this a special case in deference to Darwin?
>
> John (Robert!?)
A small pun to credit both Robert Elias and John Harshman. My bad.
> makes a clean distinction between references to facts
> and statements describing those facts. NS and SoF are references to
> part of TOE; they are NOT statements that fully and accurately
> describe those aspects of the theory. (This is part of the reason
> that it is not appropriate to attack the apparent content of the
> REFERENCE, as the tautological argument does.) John comes down on us
> when we make false statements about the CONTENT of facts or theories.
I'll take that as a "no", then.
You asked for input. I didn't understand you actually meant from
anybody but me. Sorry to bother you.
Friar Broccoli
I certainly did not mean "from anybody but you" and appreciated your
input..
I cannot imagine what I said to make you feel that.
I did genuinely misunderstand some of your comments. And I really do
find the application of tautologies confusing - not as bad as
falsification, but a minefield nevertheless. Not only that but you
asked about their application with respect to induction and deduction,
probably the two most fundamental concepts in science and philosophy
with almost endless implications. For me the question is so complex
at so many levels that it is almost impossible for me to express how
impossible it would be for me to even isolate a few of the simpler
aspects.
I doubt if Burkhard or Wilkins would have tackled that question - and
I'm not even close to being in their league.
> Sorry to bother you.
cassandra
<snip to point>
> I certainly did not mean "from anybody but you" and appreciated your
> input..
I don't get that impression. You leave untouched your dismissal of
every one of my points.
> I cannot imagine what I said to make you feel that.
In reply to your professed innocence, I offer the difference in
character between your reply to me and your replies to Ivar and Bill.
And since you acknowledge your inclinitation to interpret my comments
negatively, I feel compelled to stipulate they deserve your effusive
and spontaneous expression of appreciation.
> I did genuinely misunderstand some of your comments. And I really do
> find the application of tautologies confusing - not as bad as
> falsification, but a minefield nevertheless. Not only that but you
> asked about their application with respect to induction and deduction,
> probably the two most fundamental concepts in science and philosophy
> with almost endless implications. For me the question is so complex
> at so many levels that it is almost impossible for me to express how
> impossible it would be for me to even isolate a few of the simpler
> aspects.
>
> I doubt if Burkhard or Wilkins would have tackled that question - and
> I'm not even close to being in their league.
I would be happy with a reply from anybody focused on the definitions
of the terms I identified.
Kalkidas
"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66d92184-7d5d-461b...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> After more than a year, I have finally gotten around to preparing the
> Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
>
> Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
> If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
The tautology faq doesn't need revising, because it is complete and
consistent, as demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't need revising.
el cid
> Forgot to provide a link to the revised FAQ:http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html
>
>
>
>
> > After more than a year, I have finally gotten around to preparing the
> > Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
>
> > Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
> > If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
>
> > at the end, so if you'd like your real name used then tell me what it
> > is either here or in a private email to eliasrk(at)gmail.com and I
> > will modify. Also if you feel you made a contribution that and I did
> > not acknowledge you (a real possibility) drop me an email and I will
> > almost certainly add you.
>
> > For reference here are all the threads containing discussions:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ee57160......
>
> > however I am pretty sure Google has mis-indexed some posts so they are
> > effectively lost.
>
> > located here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> > in the archive for reference.
>
> > If you (John) would like me to add a pointer to the new location, tell
> > me what you want and how your original will be designated, and I can
> > add the link before the FAQ is copied out of my ability to modify it
> > further.
>
>
> > If you'd like I could modify copies of that page too, in whatever way
Clearly you've put a great deal of effort into this, a rather
thankless task but thanks. However,
Please add me to the list that thinks the new faq is too complicated.
My opinion is that it is trying to do too much. I also think it is
wrong is saying that SoF isn't a tautology, more below on that.
To correctly judge the FAQ it is critical to know what
questions need to be answered.
If it were organized to focus on specific questions, with a header
identifying those questions, that would provide useful structure
and focus. What to include, add, subtract is driven by the
specific questions that are being answered.
I suggest this FAQ should answer:
1 the what is the "evolution is a tautology" complaint?
2 what is a tautology?
3 is evolution/natural selection/survival of the fittest a tautology
and so what?
3a what's the difference between evolution, natural selection,
and survival of the fittest
Do you really want it to answer more? The historical tidbits
about when Darwin added the phrase are interesting but
deflect from the necessary. Relegate it to a footnote it if
you keep it at all.
I think 1 is done well. A link to a page that includes the larger
quote in context that is sympathetic to it would be nice.
The message is, yes, people actually argue this and
here's what they say.
2 Here I think you do way too much. There's some good stuff
there but I would move most of it to a "more about types of
tautologies" section at the end. Provide a simple example
of how definitions are tautologies, an internal link to the
"more about types of tautologies" and an outward link to
wiki or such. The key point is that when you define a term,
the definition of that term is a tautology.
3 is really the key. As I propose the questions, the
answers are no, no, yes.
This leads to my specific complaint that the proposed
faq is wrong as SoF is a tautology. Fitness, in the modern
evolutionary and in particular within population genetics,
is defined by survival (of alleles to the next generation).
The arguments that SoF isn't a tautology are word games
and wrong. SoF is a tautology.
So what? SoF is only part of NS, NS is only part of
evolution.
More can be said about the variant meanings of
fitness with some potentially interesting examples
in the bird-of-paradise. But fitness in the population
genetics sense is absolutely defined in a tautology
that refers to survival to the next generation.
John S. Wilkins
That was funny. But the mere fact that it *does* need revising shows it
was not tautological...
Kalkidas
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1jpddoz.mis6yn1hiubjeN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> "Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:66d92184-7d5d-461b...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>> > After more than a year, I have finally gotten around to preparing the
>> > Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
>> >
>> > Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
>> > If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
>>
>> The tautology faq doesn't need revising, because it is complete and
>> consistent, as demonstrated by the fact that it doesn't need revising.
>
> That was funny. But the mere fact that it *does* need revising shows it
> was not tautological...
The arguments about revising the tautology faq are all based on circular
reasoning. Therefore, it should neither be revised nor left alone.
ivar
Tautology RFQ. Perhaps the following note can help clarify things.
You can divide tautology into two broad categories: rhetoric and
logic. This is what the Wikipedia does. If you look up tautology in
a modern dictionary, for example, the American Heritage Dictionary
(accessible through http://www.onelook.com/), you find both types
mentioned:
"tautology
1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words;
redundancy.
b. An instance of such repetition.
2. Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler
statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the
simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the
statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow."
Other modern dictionaries have similar entries. The two meanings are
very different. Rhetorical tautology is concerned with writing style;
logical tautologies are concerned with logical truth.
I think that I first encountered the term "semantic tautology" about a
year ago in an essay by John Wilkens (http://evolvingthoughts.net/
2009/08/26/tautology-4-what-is-a-tautology/). He wrote:
"A semantic tautology is basically a definition. The Oxford English
Dictionary (OED) defines it as
a. A repetition of the same statement. b. The repetition (esp. in
the immediate context) of the same word or phrase, or of the same idea
or statement in other words: usually as a fault of style...."
The OED gives several examples of the above definitions, which suggest
that a rhetorical definition is meant, e.g.,
"The Taedium of Tautology is odious to every Pen and Ear." [from
1748]
At the time, I didn't investigate the term "semantic tautology" and
vaguely assumed it meant a rhetorical tautology. However, when I do
so now, I find the meaning is ambiguous. The OED does not define the
term. If you search for "semantic tautology" in the Wikipedia, you
are directed to the Tautology (logic) article. http://www.onelook.com/
points to the Wikipedia article and to this definition:
"A [well-formed formula] of truth-functional propositional logic
whose truth table column contains nothing but T's when these are
interpreted as the truth-value Truth."
A search for the term on the web also seems to suggest that semantic
tautology generally refers to a logical tautology.
To complicate things further, consider this definition of tautology
found in the glossary of Curd and Cover's "Philosophy of Science, The
Central Issues":
TAUTOLOGY Any statement that is true solely in virtue of its logical
form, e.g., if tigers are herbivorous, then tigers are herbivorous;
either xenon combines with phosphorus or it does not. Sometimes the
term tautology is used more broadly to refer to analytic statements
that are true by definition, e.g., no herbivores eat flesh. (See
analytic statements)
Curd and Cover's definition of analytic statements is:
ANALYTIC STATEMENTS Modern philosophers define an analytic statement
as one that has truth (or falsity) completely determined by the
meaning of the words and symbols used to express it.... All
tautologies (logical truths) are analytic. So, too, are statements
such as "all squares have four sides" and "all mammals suckle their
young...."
Elliott Sober in his "Philosophy of Biology" also discusses analytic
statements. He writes on page 69 "The term 'tautology' is sometimes
given a wider application," e.g., to include definitions.
We could quibble about definitions of tautology. However, this is not
my concern here.
If Coulter's quote is, at least, in part, a semantic tautology, then
what kind of semantic tautology is it? Is her semantic tautology
rhetorical, logical (in a narrow sense), analytic, e.g., a definition,
a "contingent tautology," whatever that is, or something else? What
is the proposed Tautology RFQ refuting?
A couple of comments in response to one of your earlier posts:
On Sep 21, 9:18 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... It is for this
> reason that I have placed (what I see as) the simplest
> and most compelling arguments at the beginning and moved
> the more difficult ones to the end.
> ... Specifically I am hopeful that the title:
>
> "Most Creationists agree that the Fittest Survive"
>
> near the beginning will get the reader at least to the
> end of that section, which, in my view contains the
> argument which is by far the most powerful: namely that
> creationists are arguing against a position they already
> accept.
The fact that most creationists accept microevolution should be
troubling to readers; however, a problem is that this fact by itself
does not refute Coulter's argument. Readers will probably suspect
that something is wrong, but most will not know what it is.
Conceivably, Coulter is right, implying that creationists should
reject microevolution as well as macroevolution. Other readers might
start to analyze the problem, e.g., if there is evidence for
microevolution, then there must be something wrong with Coulter's
reasoning, etc. But, this requires a lot from the reader. My point
is that it is not enough to say there is an inconsistency; you also
have to show how to eliminate the tautology.
Nevertheless, I was intrigued by the idea of responding to Coulter by
commenting on microevolution. I almost added a final paragraph to my
suggested Tautology FAQ, which would have started something like:
"It is amusing to note that...."
> On Sep 21, 6:44 am, ivar <ylvis...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Coulter is asserting that the idea of natural selection reduces to the
> > idea that:
>
> > "The survivors are the survivors."
>
> First note that Coulter did not say this. This is
> substituting our words for her words.
It seems to me that this is what she meant. It is a common
description of the tautology problem used by Karl Popper, Stephen Jay
Gould, and others. Can you suggest any alternative statement of her
tautology?
> > Further, one can test whether a particular variation results
> > in longer life and more offspring, i.e., whether Darwin's
> > version of natural selection works.
>
> This statement would be a bitch to defend in a real
> argument. I think - creationists already agree that
> favourable variants are selected - because it is so
> obvious, is the easier and more effective route.
Do they? To do so would accept natural selection.
And are you suggesting that natural selection cannot be tested?
Ivar
cassandra
> I have been having a problem understanding the logic of the proposed
> Tautology RFQ. Perhaps the following note can help clarify things.
>
> You can divide tautology into two broad categories: rhetoric and
> logic. This is what the Wikipedia does. If you look up tautology in
> a modern dictionary, for example, the American Heritage Dictionary
> mentioned:
>
> "tautology
>
> 1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words;
> redundancy.
> b. An instance of such repetition.
>
> 2. Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler
> statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the
> simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the
> statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow."
Very interesting.
Sounds like an accurate paraphrase to me. A more interesting but
related question is if the FAQ should quote Ann Coulter here. She
isn't an authority on Creationist or ID philosophy, and quoting her
risks dragging in unrelated issues about Ann Coulter.
> > > Further, one can test whether a particular variation results
> > > in longer life and more offspring, i.e., whether Darwin's
> > > version of natural selection works.
>
> > This statement would be a bitch to defend in a real
> > argument. I think - creationists already agree that
> > favourable variants are selected - because it is so
> > obvious, is the easier and more effective route.
>
> Do they? To do so would accept natural selection.
Not according to them. Their argument in paraphrase is each kind can
produce only more of its kind, regardless of how varied that kind may
be. Of course their argument breaks down when pressed for an
objective definition of "kind".
el cid
> I have been having a problem understanding the logic of the proposed
> Tautology RFQ. Perhaps the following note can help clarify things.
>
> You can divide tautology into two broad categories: rhetoric and
> logic. This is what the Wikipedia does. If you look up tautology in
> a modern dictionary, for example, the American Heritage Dictionary
Question: what is the purpose of the tautology FAQ?
Presumably the utility would be to address a common
attack on evolution: that it is not but a tautology.
Don't be distracted by the many ways you think
it is a vacuous attack or self-defeating. Rather,
define the attack, explain enough about
tautologies to frame why some naive person might
think this way, then explain why the attack fails.
The Coulter quote demonstrates an example
of the attack. Like many such attacks, it has
additional flaws. Don't be distracted by them.
At essence, the attack is that _fitness_ is a
surrogate for 'those who survive' which renders
one of the pillars of natural selection a tautology.
In essence this is true. So what? Tautologies
are not completely vacuous. In this case, SoF
highlights a potentially overlooked aspect
of fitness. More importantly, a tautology within
the definition of NS does not pose a logical
problem for NS. The attack is thus impotent.
Now the issue of fitness is more complicated.
As noted in the faq, the population genetics
definition of fitness is based on the proportion
of alleles that survive into the next generation.
This definition of fitness is the relevant
definition within The Modern Synthesis, by
which I mean our current and mathematically
mature theory of evolution.
Fitness as proposed by Darwin had a less
mathematically formalized meaning. When
NS is formulated using this more general
sense of fitness - roughly meaning the faster,
the stronger, the more apt - then the SoF
statement within the NS argument is not
tautologous but could instead be seen as
a trivial or obvious consequence. It is also
only generally true as there are clearly
exceptions. The fastest may not always be
the winners, for instance where fastest is
correlated to being less frugal with energy
reserves resulting in a greater tendency to
die of starvation offsetting the probabilistic
advantage of escaping a predator.
The population genetics definition of
fitness is observational based on actual
outcomes while the alternative I suggest
is predictive based on a simple model.
However, these subtleties belong in a fitness
faq, not the tautology faq, IMSHO.
backspace
"....We can see this difference clearly if we consider what would
happen during a process of verification. If in a survey one found an
unmarried husband, one would simply exclude him from the category of
husband and move on. Hence, it is a necessary truth that a husband is
married. Similar reasoning applies to "lubricating grease", "free
gift" and "horned unicorn" since all are human constructs, not
independent realities. ........."
Is the contention that "free gift" is a tautology true? . To assert
that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to misframe the
particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a dinner
and a movie to his date may be a "gift" but it sometimes comes bundled
with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner asks first
"if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets the answer
"no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free gift" of
dinner. It is incorrect that no gift can ever have non-free
implications attached to it.
Another example is "suddenly, without warning". If two armies oppose
each other in the field and one commander sends the opposition a
warning message as follows "I instruct you to retreat or I will
attack", any subsequent attack, sudden or otherwise, was warned.
"Sudden" means "happening or coming unexpectedly". But students of
military history have noted; via effective deception, any attack can
be seen as "sudden", even if fair warning was previously given.
An expression (as opposed to an assertion) is considered tautological
if it contains redundant information. For example, "to return back
again" is tautological because the sense of "back again" is already
fully contained within the word "return", and so is redundant.
backspace
Natural selection is not even a sentence how could it be a tautology,
falsifiable or non falsifiable or what ever?
backspace
1=1, what happens, happens are logical assertions that can't be
verified nor refuted. But "what happens, happens and therefore my
mommy had long teeth and a tail 10mil years ago" is a rhetorical
tautology, the conclusion doesn't follow logically, even though the
conclusion might be correct.
Our problem is that we are using the limited lexicon of the English
language to describe many and varied concepts using the same semantic
label: tautology. All logical validity's , logical tautologies ,
pleonasms and rhetorical tautologies are classified under the rubric
"semantic tautology". "free gift" is a semantic tautology. The term is
used a device to communicate many concepts in different contexts.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Our problem is that we are using the limited lexicon of the English
>language to describe many and varied concepts
such as 'for god so loved the world....'
that what you h ad in mind?
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>An expression (as opposed to an assertion) is considered tautological
>if it contains redundant information. For example, "to return back
>again" is tautological because the sense of "back again" is already
>fully contained within the word "return", and so is redundant.
a guy who hears voices and believes this means god speaks to him and
him alone
trying to tell the rest of the world about his knowledge of language
you gotta LOVE creationism
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Natural selection is not even a sentence how could it be a tautology,
>falsifiable or non falsifiable or what ever?
because scientists know what it means and how to test it
you, with your 3rd century mentality and schizophrenic hearing of
voices, have a problem
Friar Broccoli
> I have been having a problem understanding the logic of the proposed
> Tautology RFQ. Perhaps the following note can help clarify things.
>
> You can divide tautology into two broad categories: rhetoric and
> logic. This is what the Wikipedia does. If you look up tautology in
> a modern dictionary, for example, the American Heritage Dictionary
I agonized over all these issues concerning the definition of
tautology for a long long time during the early drafts. The key
problem is that there are so many definitions from so many
points of view. *ALL* the definitions are criticized as
inadequate by commentators and supporters of alternative
definitions. Even if I understood all the issues, which I
absolutely do not, I could not sensibly resolve the debates.
To keep the FAQ as *_SHORT_* and clear as possible I need only
make it clear to the reader that there is more than one
definition, and Coulter appears to be using more than one.
So my constraints are:
1) The FAQ must be short enough to be read by real people.
2) The FAQ is about tautologies so MUST contain a discussion of
the definition of tautologies.
3) A complete discussion of the definition of tautologies would
take hundreds of pages.
Consequently, I need to take a shortcut, to extract the core
issue (definition switching) without completely loosing the
reader.
Concerning your question about "contingent". It simply refers
to the fact that: if the truth of statement (whether claimed to
be a tautology or not) can be decided by observation then the
statement is not a tautology in the necessary truth sense.
I used "necessary" and "contingent" because they are the
traditional terms used to make this distinction.
> A couple of comments in response to one of your earlier posts:
>
> On Sep 21, 9:18 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... It is for this
> > reason that I have placed (what I see as) the simplest
> > and most compelling arguments at the beginning and moved
> > the more difficult ones to the end.
> > ... Specifically I am hopeful that the title:
>
> > "Most Creationists agree that the Fittest Survive"
>
> > near the beginning will get the reader at least to the
> > end of that section, which, in my view contains the
> > argument which is by far the most powerful: namely that
> > creationists are arguing against a position they already
> > accept.
>
> The fact that most creationists accept microevolution should be
> troubling to readers; however, a problem is that this fact by itself
> does not refute Coulter's argument. Readers will probably suspect
> that something is wrong, but most will not know what it is.
> Conceivably, Coulter is right, implying that creationists should
> reject microevolution as well as macroevolution. Other readers might
> start to analyze the problem, e.g., if there is evidence for
> microevolution, then there must be something wrong with Coulter's
> reasoning, etc. But, this requires a lot from the reader. My point
> is that it is not enough to say there is an inconsistency; you also
> have to show how to eliminate the tautology.
Did you read my reply to Bill (who was agreeing with you) here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2271a499ff2f99a8
I will explain the logic of this in more detail in my reply to
El Cid (upthread - not downthread) which should be ready in an
hour or two.
> Nevertheless, I was intrigued by the idea of responding to Coulter by
> commenting on microevolution. I almost added a final paragraph to my
> suggested Tautology FAQ, which would have started something like:
>
> "It is amusing to note that...."
>
> > On Sep 21, 6:44 am, ivar <ylvis...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Coulter is asserting that the idea of natural selection reduces to the
> > > idea that:
>
> > > "The survivors are the survivors."
>
> > First note that Coulter did not say this. This is
> > substituting our words for her words.
>
> It seems to me that this is what she meant. It is a common
> description of the tautology problem used by Karl Popper, Stephen Jay
> Gould, and others. Can you suggest any alternative statement of her
> tautology?
>
> > > Further, one can test whether a particular variation results
> > > in longer life and more offspring, i.e., whether Darwin's
> > > version of natural selection works.
>
> > This statement would be a bitch to defend in a real
> > argument. I think - creationists already agree that
> > favourable variants are selected - because it is so
> > obvious, is the easier and more effective route.
>
> Do they? To do so would accept natural selection.
>
> And are you suggesting that natural selection cannot be tested?
No. I was making a point about practical debating. It is MUCH
easier to work from a position your opponent already agrees
with, rather than try to re-convince him of the same thing
starting from a position that he initially opposes.
Thanks again for your comments. They are much appreciated even
if painful.
Friar Broccoli
.
> Please add me to the list that thinks the new faq is too complicated.
> My opinion is that it is trying to do too much.
I agree that the FAQ is too long and complicated.
Unfortunately, however, we are writing a *REFERENCE_DOCUMENT*
so the FAQ must touch on all the issues directly related to the
question: Is SoF a tautology?
So I have incompatible fundamental objectives, kinda like my
favorite food summary:
- Fast
- Cheap
- Good
Pick two.
I am going (to at least try) to do some additional cutting in the
sections now titled:
Are all tautologies necessarily true?
Are tautological statements verifiable?
but that isn't going to make much difference overall.
As a compromise I am going to put a two paragraph summary of
the reply as an introduction/overview at the beginning of the
FAQ. A first draft is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2271a499ff2f99a8
I know you don't agree with the substantive point. I explain why
SoF is definitely NOT a tautology at the very end of this reply.
The main point is that at least 90% of readers will read the
first two paragraphs and leave - but at least they will leave
with a complete summary of one of the core arguments.
In many cases they will then try to use that argument against a
creationist, and become ensnared in a secondary issue of some
sort. At that point they can come back and learn about the
other aspects of the argument.
> I also think it is wrong is saying that SoF isn't a tautology,
> more below on that.
>
> To correctly judge the FAQ it is critical to know what
> questions need to be answered.
>
> If it were organized to focus on specific questions, with a header
> identifying those questions, that would provide useful structure
> and focus. What to include, add, subtract is driven by the
> specific questions that are being answered.
>
> I suggest this FAQ should answer:
> 1 the what is the "evolution is a tautology" complaint?
> 2 what is a tautology?
> 3 is evolution/natural selection/survival of the fittest a tautology
> and so what?
> 3a what's the difference between evolution, natural selection,
> and survival of the fittest
.
> Do you really want it to answer more?
YES!! I want to ensure that an evolutionist who finds himself
in an argument with a creationist about whether SoF is or is not
a tautology has available a complete summary of all the key
arguments and concepts related to this question.
I cannot see how anything less is acceptable.
Before you go into a firefight you need to know how many bullets
you have and where they are located.
I could also have replied:
NO!! And then show that your list of 4 requirements (1 to 3a)
was exactly what the FAQ provides, but that looked like too much
work. (Dale Carnegie absolutely insists that I should start out
by agreeing with you, and then showing that we are in complete
agreement so my laziness here is absolutely inexcusable.)
> The historical tidbits
> about when Darwin added the phrase are interesting but
> deflect from the necessary. Relegate it to a footnote it if
> you keep it at all.
Your fourth point above was:
"3a what's the difference between evolution, natural selection,
and survival of the fittest"
And (he says putting on his Dale Carnegie hat) a very good point
it is too. The little bit of history makes the point that SoF
was introduced as a synonym for NS. Simply asserting that NS
and SoF are synonyms is worthless. The historical context makes
it clear that no other interpretation is possible, leading
directly to the point that since NS is not a tautology, SoF also
cannot be one.
(Below you say SoF is a subset of NS)
> I think 1 is done well. A link to a page that includes the larger
> quote in context that is sympathetic to it would be nice.
> The message is, yes, people actually argue this and
> here's what they say.
.
> 2 Here I think you do way too much. There's some good stuff
> there but I would move most of it to a "more about types of
> tautologies" section at the end.
I tried that. I have already shifted that section as far down
the FAQ as I could. At a certain point you have to say what a
tautology is before continuing to discuss it. Since
"tautology" has multiple often ambiguous meanings that point
needs to be made completely.
But as already mentioned I will try to shorten it more.
> Provide a simple example
> of how definitions are tautologies, an internal link to the
> "more about types of tautologies" and an outward link to
> wiki or such. The key point is that when you define a term,
> the definition of that term is a tautology.
>
> 3 is really the key. As I propose the questions, the
> answers are no, no, yes.
Couldn't find the questions you were answering.
> This leads to my specific complaint that the proposed
> faq is wrong as SoF is a tautology. Fitness, in the modern
> evolutionary and in particular within population genetics,
> is defined by survival (of alleles to the next generation).
> The arguments that SoF isn't a tautology are word games
> and wrong. SoF is a tautology.
A point made by Cassandra down-thread is that in the common
perception tautology is a synonym for "devious". Since I don't
listen to FOX I wasn't aware of this, but even NPR listeners see
tautology as a synonym for "empty". Another equivalent which
has better dictionary support is "redundant".
So your "SoF is a tautology." becomes:
SoF is "devious".
SoF is "empty".
SoF is "redundant".
Since SoF is none of these it is clearly not a tautology.
So as a first approximation we can safely say that it is NOT a
tautology.
But even accepting that it is a tautology, to the best of my
knowledge, in any definition where SoF is a tautology F=ma and
E=mc^2 are also tautologies. However, since in any ordinary
meaning of the word, F=ma is not a tautology, it follows (with
apologies to Dale Carnegie) that YOU are *WRONG*.
SoF is NOT a tautology !!!!
> So what? SoF is only part of NS, NS is only part of
> evolution.
Darwin used SoF as a synonym for NS, not a subset. If you know
of modern thinkers who have made a substantive distinction, I
would like to hear back, since that will be of interest and
should (must) be footnoted. However, it changes little since
the argument goes back to the time when Darwin's use was the
only one of significance.
On the other-other hand Darwin himself sometimes seems to mix
selection and the coming into being of new variants, although I
haven't noticed any explicit statements equating either NS or SoF
with new variants arising.
More to the point, as stated in the FAQ, Darwin himself said
that NS is just a phrase that describes his theory, it is not
the theory. As Wilkins (among others) has pointed out, the same
is true of SoF.
> More can be said about the variant meanings of
> fitness with some potentially interesting examples
> in the bird-of-paradise. But fitness in the population
> genetics sense is absolutely defined in a tautology
> that refers to survival to the next generation.
- Fitness has meaning only in the context of an individual (the
composite whole).
- Survival refers to traits.
Individuals NEVER survive (for long), it is their traits that
survive.
Can you argue that
- traits and individuals are the same
without also accepting that
- white and swans are the same?
I am extremely slow, and have a lot of work to do, so I may not
answer any further posts in this thread for a few weeks, unless
I have questions.
If you come back with evidence supporting your assertion that
SoF is a subset of NS, then I almost certainly will have
additional questions.
Ernest Major
<a0133e49-9bc5-4031...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> writes
>I am extremely slow, and have a lot of work to do, so I may not answer
>any further posts in this thread for a few weeks, unless I have
>questions.
Another viewpoint is that to describe the compound noun "survival of the
fittest" as a tautology is to commit the etymological fallacy - to
address the literal meaning of the words it is made up of, rather than
to address the concept that it denotes.
Survival of the fittest was introduced as an alternative thumbnail
description for natural selection, due to people having similar problems
with natural selection. The concept that is denoted is that there exists
differential reproductive success resulting from causal interactions of
the environment and different hereditary variants in the traits of
organisms, and that the continued operation of this process, in suitable
circumstances, results in a change in the hereditary makeup of a
population, or more concisely differential reproductive success caused
by hereditary traits. This is not a tautology, even if it's not always
easy to distinguish it from differential reproductive success arising
from random events unconnected with the organisms hereditary traits.
If you're aiming for a short FAQ, does this approach help. You could
then go on to point out the contradiction of creationist acceptance of
microevolution and their dismissal of the process as a tautology.
--
alias Ernest Major
el cid
One reason we disagree is that I think the "too complicated"
complaint is very significant. I see only one viable way to
address that. Quipily I say, 'less is more'.
> > The historical tidbits
> > about when Darwin added the phrase are interesting but
> > deflect from the necessary. Relegate it to a footnote it if
> > you keep it at all.
>
> Your fourth point above was:
>
> "3a what's the difference between evolution, natural selection,
> and survival of the fittest"
>
> And (he says putting on his Dale Carnegie hat) a very good point
> it is too. The little bit of history makes the point that SoF
> was introduced as a synonym for NS. Simply asserting that NS
> and SoF are synonyms is worthless. The historical context makes
> it clear that no other interpretation is possible, leading
> directly to the point that since NS is not a tautology, SoF also
> cannot be one.
Multiple times in my life I have been taught about evolution
and most of those times SoF was not equivalent to NS.
I content that the logical statement, The Fittest have
advantages in Survival to produce more offspring IS
SoF. Natural selection includes more, it includes the
observation that there is diversity, that it is heritable
and what happens over the course of multiple generations.
SoF does not indicate there is heritability of traits.
Your historical reference has not ruled how biologists
typically use the term Survival of the Fittest.
> (Below you say SoF is a subset of NS)
>
> > I think 1 is done well. A link to a page that includes the larger
> > quote in context that is sympathetic to it would be nice.
> > The message is, yes, people actually argue this and
> > here's what they say.
>
> .
>
> > 2 Here I think you do way too much. There's some good stuff
> > there but I would move most of it to a "more about types of
> > tautologies" section at the end.
>
> I tried that. I have already shifted that section as far down
> the FAQ as I could. At a certain point you have to say what a
> tautology is before continuing to discuss it. Since
> "tautology" has multiple often ambiguous meanings that point
> needs to be made completely.
I must disagree. There is the question of the most obvious
meaning in the context used. That is that one is saying the
same thing twice. All the other interpretations are not
directly relevant to the main trust. Again, my strong bias
is to stay closest to the essential points required to address
the complaint that "evolution is a tautology".
> But as already mentioned I will try to shorten it more.
> > Provide a simple example
> > of how definitions are tautologies, an internal link to the
> > "more about types of tautologies" and an outward link to
> > wiki or such. The key point is that when you define a term,
> > the definition of that term is a tautology.
> > 3 is really the key. As I propose the questions, the
> > answers are no, no, yes.
> Couldn't find the questions you were answering.
1, 2, 3 above.
> > This leads to my specific complaint that the proposed
> > faq is wrong as SoF is a tautology. Fitness, in the modern
> > evolutionary and in particular within population genetics,
> > is defined by survival (of alleles to the next generation).
> > The arguments that SoF isn't a tautology are word games
> > and wrong. SoF is a tautology.
> A point made by Cassandra down-thread is that in the common
> perception tautology is a synonym for "devious". Since I don't
> listen to FOX I wasn't aware of this, but even NPR listeners see
> tautology as a synonym for "empty". Another equivalent which
> has better dictionary support is "redundant".
How much burden must be addressed? Tautology is not
even close to being synonymous with "devious". It is
only empty in the sense that definitions are empty.
At all costs, you don't want to deny that SoF is a tautology
because some people might then object. It is a
tautology but that doesn't matter. To me, that is the
essential message the faq should carry.
> So your "SoF is a tautology." becomes:
> SoF is "devious".
> SoF is "empty".
> SoF is "redundant".
One might note that some think "liberal" means
all sorts of nefarious things. That's hardly a reason
to deny that many of the Founding Fathers of the US
were liberal. The problem is not that SoF is a
tautology, it is with the misconceptions you claim
apply to a tautology, at least the "devious" part.
But most significantly, SoF is or isn't a tautology
independently of what misplaced connotations
that may carry. Please please don't fall for deciding
if SoF is a tautology or not based on connotations.
> Since SoF is none of these it is clearly not a tautology.
Aarrgggh. No. SoF is redundant. NS is not.
A key point here is we have a very different definition
of what SoF is. Mine is derived from how NS has
been presented in biology classes at major universities.
I don't dispute that others may legitimately define it
differently but you need to deal with the fact that
to many SoF is encapsulated by the statement
The fittest tend to survive to produce more offspring
than the less fit.
> So as a first approximation we can safely say that it is NOT a
> tautology.
No.
> But even accepting that it is a tautology, to the best of my
> knowledge, in any definition where SoF is a tautology F=ma and
> E=mc^2 are also tautologies. However, since in any ordinary
> meaning of the word, F=ma is not a tautology, it follows (with
> apologies to Dale Carnegie) that YOU are *WRONG*.
F = ma is a tautology.
I'm afraid I no longer have notes from classes taken
decades ago, however, I offer the perspective that one
who is very sympathetic to the legitimacy of the theory
of evolution has had others of similar mindsets present
SoF as the encapsulated statement mentioned above.
Perhaps I'll get around to writing up something to
address the varied meanings of SoF that are in play.
But cutting through it all, if you look at the argument
the faq is responding to, it treats SoF as the
encapsulated statement, repeating:
The fittest tend to survive to produce more offspring
than the less fit.
That statement is a tautology. The fact that it is
a tautology does not pose a logical challenge to
Natural Selection. I content that is the central message
the faq should address.
Friar Broccoli
reply to you, intending internally to make fun of myself. Since no
competent debater should ever refer to the person making the argument
much less state directly that the other person is wrong. It seemed
funny at the time; but now I am sure it was hurtful. My apologies.
Please ignore the form.
On Sep 26, 1:07 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <a0133e49-9bc5-4031-8c57-675b00cea...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >I am extremely slow, and have a lot of work to do, so I may not answer
> >any further posts in this thread for a few weeks, unless I have
> >questions.
>
> Another viewpoint is that to describe the compound noun "survival of the
> fittest" as a tautology is to commit the etymological fallacy - to
> address the literal meaning of the words it is made up of, rather than
> to address the concept that it denotes.
This is the final argument in current FAQ.
I did not move it to the front, because from experience I know that
most creationists are completely unable to understand that there is a
distinction between ideas and the words that refer to them.
>
> Survival of the fittest was introduced as an alternative thumbnail
> description for natural selection, due to people having similar problems
> with natural selection. The concept that is denoted is that there exists
> differential reproductive success resulting from causal interactions of
> the environment and different hereditary variants in the traits of
> organisms, and that the continued operation of this process, in suitable
> circumstances, results in a change in the hereditary makeup of a
> population, or more concisely differential reproductive success caused
> by hereditary traits. This is not a tautology, even if it's not always
> easy to distinguish it from differential reproductive success arising
> from random events unconnected with the organisms hereditary traits.
>
> If you're aiming for a short FAQ,
I'm not aiming for a short FAQ. Rather the shortest/clearest summary,
followed by a more detailed examination similar to the existing FAQ.
The result will be a bit longer.
> does this approach help.
My planned summary makes (I think) this point but removing the
references to the environment. That's insane of course because it
does not represent reality, but I need to tightly focus on: fit-traits
surviving, not individuals surviving, in order to break (in the fewest
possible words) the parallel between survival and fit on which the
tautology claim rests.
bpuharic
kind of like your argument that ID has not been debunked....circular
cassandra
<snip to point>
> A point made by Cassandra down-thread is that in the common
> perception tautology is a synonym for "devious". Since I don't
> listen to FOX I wasn't aware of this, but even NPR listeners see
> tautology as a synonym for "empty". Another equivalent which
> has better dictionary support is "redundant".
You really are into character assassination mode now, aintcha?
Do I get to know why? Or is it shoot first and ask questions later
time?
el cid
> To: El Cid: I played around a lot with "YOU are WRONG !!!" in my
> reply to you, intending internally to make fun of myself. Since no
> competent debater should ever refer to the person making the argument
> much less state directly that the other person is wrong. It seemed
> funny at the time; but now I am sure it was hurtful. My apologies.
> Please ignore the form.
Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness.
Apologies if you don't recognize the reference.
And don't worry about hurting my feelings. I have an unhealthy
enjoyment of the rough and tumble of a spirited disagreement,
most especially when it fundamentally grounded in ideas. YOU
I have never witnessed to be unduly ad hominem in your
approach to debate. Your reputation carries on.
backspace
> In message
> <a0133e49-9bc5-4031-8c57-675b00cea...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >I am extremely slow, and have a lot of work to do, so I may not answer
> >any further posts in this thread for a few weeks, unless I have
> >questions.
> Another viewpoint is that to describe the compound noun "survival of the
> fittest" as a tautology is to commit the etymological fallacy - to
> address the literal meaning of the words it is made up of, rather than
> to address the concept that it denotes.
Such concept was the one due to Spencer, are you referring to him
because Spencer was cited by John Tyndall 1870 in his Belfast
address , which influenced the course of history.
> Survival of the fittest was introduced as an alternative thumbnail
> description for natural selection, due to people having similar problems
> with natural selection.
It was a term due to Spencer , where is your citation?
> The concept that is denoted is that there exists
> differential reproductive success resulting from causal interactions of
Neither Spencer nor Darwin said DRS.
> the environment and different hereditary variants in the traits of
> organisms, and that the continued operation of this process, in suitable
> circumstances, results in a change in the hereditary makeup of a
> population, or more concisely differential reproductive success caused
> by hereditary traits.
Citation ?
> This is not a tautology, even if it's not always
> easy to distinguish it from differential reproductive success arising
> from random events unconnected with the organisms hereditary traits.
Depends who you are interpreting .
> If you're aiming for a short FAQ, does this approach help. You could
> then go on to point out the contradiction of creationist acceptance of
> microevolution and their dismissal of the process as a tautology.
microevolution what? Are your referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
The term was first used by botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the
journal Botanical Gazette in 1909, addressing what he called the
"mystery" of how formlessness gives rise to form.[2]
..The production of form from formlessness in the egg-derived
individual, the multiplication of parts and the orderly creation of
diversity among them, in an actual evolution, of which anyone may
ascertain the facts, but of which no one has dissipated the mystery in
any significant measure. This microevolution forms an integral part of
the grand evolution problem and lies at the base of it, so that we
shall have to understand the minor process before we can thoroughly
comprehend the more general one...
Friar Broccoli
.
Sorry, I really really did not intend to direct any insult in your
direction. I just thought that equating "tautology" with "devious"
was completely detached from ordinary reality. So I thought to myself
- hmm where could that have come from?
You seem pretty bright to me. No reason for me to believe you listen
to FOX, unless the Colbert Report isn't available in your area.
cassandra
> On Sep 26, 2:14 pm, cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 12:37 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip to point>
>
> > > A point made by Cassandra down-thread is that in the common
> > > perception tautology is a synonym for "devious". Since I don't
> > > listen to FOX I wasn't aware of this, but even NPR listeners see
> > > tautology as a synonym for "empty". Another equivalent which
> > > has better dictionary support is "redundant".
>
> .
>
> > You really are into character assassination mode now, aintcha?
>
> > Do I get to know why? Or is it shoot first and ask questions later
> > time?
>
> Sorry, I really really did not intend to direct any insult in your
> direction. I just thought that equating "tautology" with "devious"
> was completely detached from ordinary reality. So I thought to myself
> - hmm where could that have come from?
An insufficient bit of bathwather to rationalize tossing out my baby
IMNSHO
> You seem pretty bright to me. No reason for me to believe you listen
> to FOX, unless the Colbert Report isn't available in your area.
Just not bright enough to help. Still, I understand the difference
between inference and equating, and between tautology and circularity.
Mark Isaak
> On Sep 24, 8:21 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ["What is a tautology?"] Here I think you do way too much. There's
>> some good stuff there but I would move most of it to a "more about
>> types of tautologies" section at the end.
>
> I tried that. I have already shifted that section as far down the FAQ
> as I could. At a certain point you have to say what a tautology is
> before continuing to discuss it. Since "tautology" has multiple often
> ambiguous meanings that point needs to be made completely.
>
> But as already mentioned I will try to shorten it more.
Perhaps you could use the summary approach here, too. Write one
paragaraph of the most important point, and then add a sentence saying,
"If you are not interested in exhaustive detail, skip to the next
section."
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
ivar
> I am going (to at least try) to do some additional cutting in the
> sections now titled:
>
> Are all tautologies necessarily true?
> Are tautological statements verifiable?
>
> but that isn't going to make much difference overall.
A way to shorten the current RFQ significantly is to eliminate most of
the contents of the sections entitled "Are tautological statements
verifiable" and "Mathematical Expressions of Scientific Laws as
tautologies." One doesn't need to resort to Einstein's General Theory
of Relativity to demonstrate that "Semantic" and "Logical" tautologies
are different and that some semantic tautologies are testable. All
one needs are two or three simple examples. The current contents of
these sections use earthmoving equipment when a garden trowel will do.
Ivar
backspace
When Is a Tautology Not a Tautology?
My Aunt T. was married to a gruff and taciturn Irishman who rejoiced
under the name of 'Morris.' Thinking to engage Uncle Mo in
conversation during one of my infrequent visits to the Big Apple, and
knowing that Morris drove a beer truck, I once made some comment about
the superiority of German over American beer. Uncle Mo, not to be
seduced into the bracing waters of dialectic, replied, "Beer is
beer." End of conversation.
But the beginning of an interesting line of thought. A tautology is a
logical truth. To be precise, a tautology is a logical truth within
the propositional calculus. (Every tautology is a logical truth, but
not every logical truth is a tautology. The logical truths of the
predicate calculus are not tautologies, strictly speaking.)
But having no need on the present occasion to be so persnickety, we
may use 'tautology' and 'logical truth' interchangeably. Thus it is
easy to see why someone would consider 'Beer is beer' and 'Pleasure is
pleasure' to be tautologies. They 'say nothing' about the world; they
say nothing about anything that might have been different. (Cf. L.
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 4.461 et passim.)
But are they really tautologies? That depends.
Distinguish among sentence-type, sentence-token, and proposition
(thought, Fregean Gedanke). The proposition is what is expressed on a
given occasion by the tokening of an indicative mood sentence-type.
Although the indicative mood English sentence-type 'Beer is beer' can
be used (tokened) to express a tautological proposition, it can also
be used to express a non-tautological proposition.
Thus in our laconic exchange, Uncle Mo was not attempting to instruct
me in a truth of logic. He was out to make a synthetic a posteriori
judgment -- a false one in my humble opinion -- which is better
rendered by 'All beer is the same in quality' or something like that.
So we can say that Morris was using a sentence-type whose surface
grammar typically fits it for expressing tautologies to express a non-
tautological proposition.
The same goes for 'Pleasure is pleasure' on some occasions of its
use. In the context of critique of J. S. Mill's hedonism, the
sentence could be used to express the non-tautological proposition
that pleasure as such does not furnish a criterion for distinguishing
between normatively higher and lower pleasures.
The moral of the story: whether or not a sentence expresses a
tautology cannot be decided on the basis of its surface grammar alone.
One must consider which proposition the sentence is being used to
express, a consideration that demands attention to the context.
This is part of a more general phenomenon. Take a sentence of the form
'a is F.' One would readily classify a sentence of this form as a
predication and distinguish it from an existential sentence. But 'God
is fictional' has the form in question, yet the latter sentence does
not express a predicative proposition: the thought is not that God has
the property of being fictional. The thought is rather that God does
not exist. Thus a sentence whose surface form is predicative is being
used to make a negative existential claim. (Of course, a Meinongian
will put up a fight here, but that's another post.)
Other examples of the same phenomenon can be adduced. But in the
interests of blogospheric brevity, I cease and desist.
Friar Broccoli
I have snipped everything but the essential.
[snip]
> Multiple times in my life I have been taught about evolution
> and most of those times SoF was not equivalent to NS.
> I content that the logical statement, The Fittest have
> advantages in Survival to produce more offspring IS
> SoF. Natural selection includes more, it includes the
> observation that there is diversity, that it is heritable
> and what happens over the course of multiple generations.
.
> SoF does not indicate there is heritability of traits.
I'm sorry, but this last makes no sense at all.
YOU were the one who referred me to the wiki page where fitness is
defined as follows:
___
Wabs = N(after)/N(before)
where:
Wabs is absolute fitness
N(before) is the Number of individuals with some genotype in a first
generation (before selection)
N(after) is the Number of individuals with that genotype in the
following generation (after selection)
___
In addition to defining fitness in terms of survival into the
next generation it also makes explicit reference to Selection.
> Your historical reference has not ruled how biologists
> typically use the term Survival of the Fittest.
Their use seems to be: Fitness of individuals is defined by the
survival of their genotypes into the following generation.
(Darwin had to use "traits" in place of "genotype" but it comes to
the same thing and is thus not distinguishable from NS.)
I have been unable to find evidence that NS and SoF are not
commonly used interchangeably, as Darwin first used the terms.
[snip]
>> Since SoF is none of these it is clearly not a tautology.
> Aarrgggh. No. SoF is redundant. NS is not.
"Survival" refers to the inherited genotype.
"Fittest" refers to the adaptive (or not) characteristics expressed
by individuals.
Not redundant, therefore not ANY type of tautology.
[snip]
>> But even accepting that it is a tautology, to the best of my
>> knowledge, in any definition where SoF is a tautology F=ma and
>> E=mc^2 are also tautologies. However, since in any ordinary
>> meaning of the word, F=ma is not a tautology, it follows (with
>> apologies to Dale Carnegie) that YOU are *WRONG*.
> F = ma is a tautology.
If F = ma is a tautology then how could it have been partially
falsified?
Thus it is not a tautology for the same reason:
"All swans are white birds" is not a tautology, it is observationally
contingent.
[snip]
> The fittest tend to survive to produce more offspring
> than the less fit.
> That statement is a tautology. The fact that it is
> a tautology does not pose a logical challenge to
> Natural Selection. I content that is the central message
> the faq should address.
Secondarily: SoF is not a tautology as explained above because
survival does NOT refer to individuals (who never survive) but
to their genotypes.
In addition: This point is already addressed in the FAQ as follows:
Even if we assume that "Wabs = N(after)/N(before)" (ie. SoF) is
a tautology then so is F=ma. Therefore since everyone agrees
that F=ma as a tautology is useful, so is SoF.
I will try to make that point more explicit in the FAQ.
Also I think making the message "Tautologies are not a bad
thing" is presentational suicide since most people are already
convinced they are, so many readers will immediately conclude we
are trying to argue that black is white. In addition, some
types of rhetorical tautologies clearly are bad, so there is no
simple way of making this point.
el cid
Rather than responding to your well edited points, snipped
to this.
> I have been unable to find evidence that NS and SoF are not
> commonly used interchangeably, as Darwin first used the terms.
I refer you to the Coulter quote where she specifically
cites the 2nd prong of Darwin's theory.
I believe it refers to something like this:
prong 1 Variability exists in populations
prong 2 Variations that are fitter produce more offspring
prong 3 Some of these variations are inheritable
Conclusion Populations will evolve biased toward these
favored inheritable variations.
Alternative casting of the logic are possible with the
same essential theory of NS at play. The whole is NS,
prong 2 is SoF.
Rewriting some,
prong 2a Let fitness be a measure of how a trait is retained
in subsequent generations
prong 2b For competing traits A and B, with fitness a and b,
if fitness a > b, more of trait A with show a relative increase
compared to trait B in subsequent generations.
With some extra effort, you can see that 2b says that if
a > b then a > b ==> a tautology
I claim that the essence of the 'evolution is a tautology'
complaint reduces to this part of the development of
the logic of natural selection and labels this part to
be Survival of the Fittest .
From there, the attack either switches definitions to
conflate SoF (as defined above) with NS or else
presumes that any syllogism that contains a tautology
(if a > b then a > b) is cheating.
Perhaps I'm wrong about the essence of the attack.
As it is an errant attack, you can't expect it to be
developed in rigorous detail. However, every such
attack I've seen utilized either, and often both, of the
conflation or presumption I mention directly above.
.
backspace
> Perhaps I'm wrong about the essence of the attack.
> As it is an errant attack, you can't expect it to be
> developed in rigorous detail. However, every such
> attack I've seen utilized either, and often both, of the
> conflation or presumption I mention directly above.
The concepts that John Tyndall and Charles Darwin referred to was had
two expressions:
1) Natural selection
2) SoF
Darwin said that SoF was a better expression. We can have many terms,
words and sentences for a single idea. Remember that SoF and NS don't
mean anything, only the idea the represented in 1870 by John Tyndall
had meaning. SoF <=> NS back in 1870. It might not today,but it did
back then . The question is why are we using the terms from 1870 to
describe ideas we know today and concepts that Tyndall and Darwin
didn't even know about?
The confusion is in trying to force a meaning into SoF , NS instead
of trying to understand they are but objects, symbols that represented
an idea . This idea Darwin identified as that of Aristotle , he wrote
after quoting him: ".... we can see here the principle of natural
selection shadowed forth...."
Darwin and John Tyndall could not have solved a problem they couldn't
define and neither could Aristotle, because it is actually Aristotle's
concept we are dealing with. Thus we must go back to the concept of
Aristotle which Darwin reformulated throughout his book representing
Aristotle's ideas under the symbol string NS and SoF...
Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
el cid
Your problem seems to be incomprehension indeed.
You fail to understand that any complaint of tautology
rests on a single statement that is part of a larger
whole, that this single statement is the bumber-
sticker redux of a more complete line of reasoning,
that attacks on an over-simplification of an idea are
akin to strawman attacks.
What is so hard to understand in what I wrote, that these
attacks play bait and switch, attacking the jingoistic
reduction of NS to a single line about survival of the
fittest, conflate that with the totality of natural selection
and indeed the totality of evolution and further make
fraudulent insinuations about logic that includes
tautologies.
chris thompson
>
> > Perhaps I'm wrong about the essence of the attack.
> > As it is an errant attack, you can't expect it to be
> > developed in rigorous detail. However, every such
> > attack I've seen utilized either, and often both, of the
> > conflation or presumption I mention directly above.
>
> The concepts that John Tyndall and Charles Darwin referred to was had
> two expressions:
> 1) Natural selection
> 2) SoF
>
> Darwin said that SoF was a better expression. We can have many terms,
> words and sentences for a single idea. Remember that SoF and NS don't
> mean anything, only the idea the represented in 1870 by John Tyndall
Nonsense. You have repeatedly been told about differential
reproductive success, but you remain willfully ignorant.
> had meaning. SoF <=> NS back in 1870. It might not today,but it did
> back then . The question is why are we using the terms from 1870 to
> describe ideas we know today and concepts that Tyndall and Darwin
> didn't even know about?
Because things change. What is so hard to grasp about that? We do not
need Darwin's terms or definitions; we can make our own, and we have.
>
> The confusion is in trying to force a meaning into SoF , NS instead
> of trying to understand they are but objects, symbols that represented
They are facts of nature. Deal with it.
> an idea . This idea Darwin identified as that of Aristotle , he wrote
> after quoting him: ".... we can see here the principle of natural
> selection shadowed forth...."
>
> Darwin and John Tyndall could not have solved a problem they couldn't
> define and neither could Aristotle, because it is actually Aristotle's
Darwin solved a problem without knowing the underlying genetic
mechanism.
> concept we are dealing with. Thus we must go back to the concept of
> Aristotle which Darwin reformulated throughout his book representing
> Aristotle's ideas under the symbol string NS and SoF...
No, we do not need to go to Aristotle. WRT natural selection and
biology, Aristotle is meaningless. We know a lot more about NS now
than we did in Darwin's time. Please try to catch up.
>
> Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
Because you are a moron?
Chris
Friar Broccoli
> On Oct 2, 3:23 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
> Rather than responding to your well edited points, snipped
> to this.
No problem, but I cannot see that you have made any valid points.
> > I have been unable to find evidence that NS and SoF are not
> > commonly used interchangeably, as Darwin first used the terms.
From this I expected you would try and show that NS and SoF are not
synonyms.
> I refer you to the Coulter quote where she specifically
> cites the 2nd prong of Darwin's theory.
I'm sorry, but what does it matter what Ann Coulter's opinion is on
the definition of anything in evolution? On pg 207 of here
"Godless ..." book she says: "No on disputes that organisms can
develop small improvements on something that already exists, otherwise
there would be no health clubs." Since she completely misunderstands
the basics of evolution, how can her (mis)use of NS versus SoF be
evidence of normal usage (or indeed of anything at all)?
> I believe it refers to something like this:
> prong 1 Variability exists in populations
> prong 2 Variations that are fitter produce more offspring
Since it is indirectly relevant farther down I feel compelled to point
out that it is not variations in the abstract that are fitter.
It is not:
"Variations that are fitter produce more offspring"
It is:
individuals that are fitter produce more offspring.
Variations become concrete only when expressed in real individuals in
real environments.
The tautology argument works only when someone can successfully pass
off a claim either that:
- it is individuals that survive (Coulter's claim)
- genetic traits/variations in the abstract are fitter (your revised
claim here)
> prong 3 Some of these variations are inheritable
> Conclusion Populations will evolve biased toward these
> favored inheritable variations.
>
> Alternative casting of the logic are possible with the
> same essential theory of NS at play. The whole is NS,
> prong 2 is SoF.
This looks like an unsupported assertion. Indeed intuitively, based
on the apparent meaning of the words ("Natural Selection" and
"Survival of the Fittest") which Darwin used to refer to his theory, I
can make a more convincing case that SoF is the whole and NS a prong
since Selection occurs *within* SoF (indeed it looks to me like
that's what Coulter herself said - [is that evidence against my
position?]). Unfortunately this argument cannot be made since four
printings of Origins describe Darwin's complete theory without the use
of the phrase SoF.
In what follows you have, as far as I can tell, changed the point of
your argument to claim that SoF is a tautology.
> Rewriting some,
> prong 2a Let fitness be a measure of how a trait is retained
> in subsequent generations
>
> prong 2b For competing traits A and B, with fitness a and b,
> if fitness a > b, more of trait A with show a relative increase
> compared to trait B in subsequent generations.
>
> With some extra effort, you can see that 2b says that if
> a > b then a > b ==> a tautology
So what you've done here is substitute A and B for a and b in the
second clause. This is invalid because it completely changes the
meaning of the relation ">".
To use finch beaks as an example:
a > b becomes: in dry years stout beaks have greater (>) fitness
A > B becomes: in the NEXT GENERATION you will be able to count more
(>) stout beaks.
there is consequence here, but no identity, or logical necessity.
Identity breaks down, not only because of the time delay, but also
because ">" as a numerical count is not identical with ">" as a
fitness qualifier.
This is clear if you consider the case were every individual with a
long beak dies in a very dry year so a=100% and b=0% but under the
simplest assumptions you will see A=75% and B=25%.
Certainly there is no logical tautology here since that would require
that you be able to substitute a, b, A, and B with any values whatever
and still achieve a true statement, which is clearly ridiculous.
You do get a valid tautology from your
a > b then a > b
but that can never carry any meaning. It really is empty (and
abstract) because it certainly won't allow you to predict the
percentage of long beaks after a year with lots of rain.
Since a testable formula more like (a > b then A > B) would allow such
a prediction its validity is testable and therefore contingent and not
a tautology.
> I claim that the essence of the 'evolution is a tautology'
> complaint reduces to this part of the development of
> the logic of natural selection and labels this part to
> be Survival of the Fittest .
Again, even if it were true that most creationists think SoF is a
subset of NS so what?
> From there, the attack either switches definitions to
> conflate SoF (as defined above) with NS or else
> presumes that any syllogism that contains a tautology
> (if a > b then a > b) is cheating.
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong about the essence of the attack.
> As it is an errant attack, you can't expect it to be
> developed in rigorous detail. However, every such
> attack I've seen utilized either, and often both, of the
> conflation or presumption I mention directly above.
I actually don't think it matters if you have "correctly" framed the
creationist argument. Supposing the argument had a valid form how
many creationists would be able to understand it?
I think that if you can produce ANY valid argument showing that SoF is
a tautology, then the FAQ must deal directly with that argument.
That's why I am replying here. I want to be absolutely sure there is
no way SoF qualifies as a tautology.
Friar Broccoli
> On Oct 2, 4:35 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 3:23 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
>
> > Rather than responding to your well edited points, snipped
> > to this.
>
> No problem, but I cannot see that you have made any valid points.
>
> > > I have been unable to find evidence that NS and SoF are not
> > > commonly used interchangeably, as Darwin first used the terms.
>
> From this I expected you would try and show that NS and SoF are not
> synonyms.
I just realized that NS could be a container including SoF because NS
might reasonably include drift, while SoF with its reference to
"fitness" could not. I'll have to adjust the FAQ for that.
Friar Broccoli
Nope. I was wrong:
Origins 1876 pg 72:
"There can also be little doubt that the tendency to vary in the same
manner has often been so strong that all the individuals of the same
species have been similarly modified without the aid of any form of
selection."
So: Darwin new about drift (or similar) and said it wasn't selection.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F401&pageseq=99
John S. Wilkins
No, NS does not *include* drift. Drift is at least the *absence* of
selection pressure on a population of smallish size. At the most, drift
is a totally different mechanism to selection (but I think it is the
inverse of selection).
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 10:03 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 2, 4:35 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 2, 3:23 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > .
>
> > > > Rather than responding to your well edited points, snipped
> > > > to this.
>
> > > No problem, but I cannot see that you have made any valid points.
>
> > > > > I have been unable to find evidence that NS and SoF are not
> > > > > commonly used interchangeably, as Darwin first used the terms.
>
> > > From this I expected you would try and show that NS and SoF are not
> > > synonyms.
>
> > I just realized that NS could be a container including SoF because NS
> > might reasonably include drift, while SoF with its reference to
> > "fitness" could not. I'll have to adjust the FAQ for that.
>
> No, NS does not *include* drift. Drift is at least the *absence* of
> selection pressure on a population of smallish size. At the most, drift
> is a totally different mechanism to selection (but I think it is the
> inverse of selection).
Thanks for the correction. At least on Google I show up as having
caught my error before you got it - does that count?
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
John S. Wilkins
Alas this isn't drift either. Darwin thought that variation might be
biassed in a particular direction sometimes. We now think this might be
true, as in the tendency of some regions to routinely have the same
mutations. But what Darwin thought was the case is not regarded as a
realistic fact of inheritance.
The earliest version of drift I know was proposed by Weismann.
John S. Wilkins
> On Oct 2, 10:59 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 2, 10:03 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 2, 4:35 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Oct 2, 3:23 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > .
> >
> > > > > Rather than responding to your well edited points, snipped
> > > > > to this.
> >
> > > > No problem, but I cannot see that you have made any valid points.
> >
> > > > > > I have been unable to find evidence that NS and SoF are not
> > > > > > commonly used interchangeably, as Darwin first used the terms.
> >
> > > > From this I expected you would try and show that NS and SoF are not
> > > > synonyms.
> >
> > > I just realized that NS could be a container including SoF because NS
> > > might reasonably include drift, while SoF with its reference to
> > > "fitness" could not. I'll have to adjust the FAQ for that.
> >
> > No, NS does not *include* drift. Drift is at least the *absence* of
> > selection pressure on a population of smallish size. At the most, drift
> > is a totally different mechanism to selection (but I think it is the
> > inverse of selection).
>
> Thanks for the correction. At least on Google I show up as having
> caught my error before you got it - does that count?
>
Oh, OK. You get a star... :-)
el cid
> On Oct 2, 4:35 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 3:23 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
>
> > Rather than responding to your well edited points, snipped
> > to this.
>
> No problem, but I cannot see that you have made any valid points.
>
> > > I have been unable to find evidence that NS and SoF are not
> > > commonly used interchangeably, as Darwin first used the terms.
>
> From this I expected you would try and show that NS and SoF are not
> synonyms.
>
> > I refer you to the Coulter quote where she specifically
> > cites the 2nd prong of Darwin's theory.
>
> I'm sorry, but what does it matter what Ann Coulter's opinion is on
> the definition of anything in evolution? On pg 207 of here
> "Godless ..." book she says: "No on disputes that organisms can
> develop small improvements on something that already exists, otherwise
> there would be no health clubs." Since she completely misunderstands
> the basics of evolution, how can her (mis)use of NS versus SoF be
> evidence of normal usage (or indeed of anything at all)?
Normal usage? I presume the usage in question is the usage
of those who make the tautology claim. The whole point of
citing this particular loon is because despite the loony nature of
argument, it is made, it is in print, and some people buy it.
The issue isn't a fundamental problem but a problem of loons
and how they get things wrong or otherwise play games
with words. In that context, her usage is relevant.
> > I believe it refers to something like this:
> > prong 1 Variability exists in populations
> > prong 2 Variations that are fitter produce more offspring
>
> Since it is indirectly relevant farther down I feel compelled to point
> out that it is not variations in the abstract that are fitter.
>
> It is not:
> "Variations that are fitter produce more offspring"
> It is:
> individuals that are fitter produce more offspring.
>
> Variations become concrete only when expressed in real individuals in
> real environments.
>
> The tautology argument works only when someone can successfully pass
> off a claim either that:
> - it is individuals that survive (Coulter's claim)
> - genetic traits/variations in the abstract are fitter (your revised
> claim here)
I'm not going to argue with you about actual evolution here,
or the subtleties of evolution occurring in populations with
selection occurring on individuals.
I am going to dispute your perspective about when the
tautology argument works. As far as I know, it never works
in a legitimate way, however, it appears to function as an
effective rhetoric to those sympathetic to the conclusion
that evolution is somehow defective. The point of a faq on
the topic, in my perception, would be to lay open the foundations
of misperceptions that make this flawed argument sound
compelling --- lay them open and expose them as cheap
and empty word games. I've already made clear (I hope) what
I think those foundations are.
> > prong 3 Some of these variations are inheritable
> > Conclusion Populations will evolve biased toward these
> > favored inheritable variations.
>
> > Alternative casting of the logic are possible with the
> > same essential theory of NS at play. The whole is NS,
> > prong 2 is SoF.
>
> This looks like an unsupported assertion. Indeed intuitively, based
> on the apparent meaning of the words ("Natural Selection" and
> "Survival of the Fittest") which Darwin used to refer to his theory, I
> can make a more convincing case that SoF is the whole and NS a prong
> since Selection occurs *within* SoF (indeed it looks to me like
> that's what Coulter herself said - [is that evidence against my
> position?]). Unfortunately this argument cannot be made since four
> printings of Origins describe Darwin's complete theory without the use
> of the phrase SoF.
The jingoistic reduction of NS always focuses on 'prong 2'.
The language of the tautology attack focuses on similar words.
This is where the term 'fittest' arises in many popular presentations
of NS. This is where 'survival' shows up. The two terms show up
together in the same sentence, working off each other. How much
more of a smoking gun do you need?
> In what follows you have, as far as I can tell, changed the point of
> your argument to claim that SoF is a tautology.
More precisely, can be expressed with a tautology.
I can also express it without using a tautology. The fact that
I can express an equivalent syllogism with and without a tautology
informs the astute mind that complaining about tautologies is
probably pointless. However, this is talk.origins and we are
more or less in the business of exposing bad arguments as
bad arguments despite the fact that it shouldn't be necessary
to do so.
> > Rewriting some,
> > prong 2a Let fitness be a measure of how a trait is retained
> > in subsequent generations
>
> > prong 2b For competing traits A and B, with fitness a and b,
> > if fitness a > b, more of trait A with show a relative increase
> > compared to trait B in subsequent generations.
>
> > With some extra effort, you can see that 2b says that if
> > a > b then a > b ==> a tautology
> So what you've done here is substitute A and B for a and b in the
> second clause. This is invalid because it completely changes the
> meaning of the relation ">".
> To use finch beaks as an example:
> a > b becomes: in dry years stout beaks have greater (>) fitness
> A > B becomes: in the NEXT GENERATION you will be able to count more
> (>) stout beaks.
> there is consequence here, but no identity, or logical necessity.
I have apparently skipped too many steps for you to follow.
For clarity, if A and B are absolute frequencies in a population,
a and b are the frequencies in subsequent populations relative
to the prior generation. My substitution is valid. Please don't
make me do the algebra. The frequency of A and B do not
address relative fitness, a and b do.
> Identity breaks down, not only because of the time delay, but also
> because ">" as a numerical count is not identical with ">" as a
> fitness qualifier.
> This is clear if you consider the case were every individual with a
> long beak dies in a very dry year so a=100% and b=0% but under the
> simplest assumptions you will see A=75% and B=25%.
I'm guessing you have a dominance/recessive model in
your mind but I don't really understand your angle.
> Certainly there is no logical tautology here since that would require
> that you be able to substitute a, b, A, and B with any values whatever
> and still achieve a true statement, which is clearly ridiculous.
No, you've misunderstood.
> You do get a valid tautology from your
> a > b then a > b
> but that can never carry any meaning. It really is empty (and
> abstract) because it certainly won't allow you to predict the
> percentage of long beaks after a year with lots of rain.
You are needlessly complicating things.
If you know a and b, you can predict A and B in the next generation
from A and B in the prior generation. If a > b, then A(F2) > A(F1)
To the extent that a and b are functions of other variables,
like rainfall, then wither a(year-N) > b(year_N) is true is a
function of the rainfall in year_N but you have added layers
of sophistication on top of the simple model of NS that is
being discussed. These complications are completely
irrelevant to any issue surrounding the refutation of the
typical tautology argument.
I'm stuck thinking here that you are working very hard to
solve a true dilemma rather than expose a trite con-game.
The claim that evolution is a tautology is a trite con-game,
though exposing how it works is apparently non-trivial.
> Since a testable formula more like (a > b then A > B) would allow such
> a prediction its validity is testable and therefore contingent and not
> a tautology.
A and B are actual allele frequencies, a and b are relative fitness.
It does not follow that if a > b then A > B. You've misunderstood
my post.
> > I claim that the essence of the 'evolution is a tautology'
> > complaint reduces to this part of the development of
> > the logic of natural selection and labels this part to
> > be Survival of the Fittest .
> Again, even if it were true that most creationists think SoF is a
> subset of NS so what?
Then you can show that even if that subset of NS is stated
in tautological form, that doesn't make NS any less valid.
Moverover, one forces a context for SoF so that the rhetoric
used against evolution doesn't start with one meaning and
jump to another.
> > From there, the attack either switches definitions to
> > conflate SoF (as defined above) with NS or else
> > presumes that any syllogism that contains a tautology
> > (if a > b then a > b) is cheating.
>
> > Perhaps I'm wrong about the essence of the attack.
> > As it is an errant attack, you can't expect it to be
> > developed in rigorous detail. However, every such
> > attack I've seen utilized either, and often both, of the
> > conflation or presumption I mention directly above.
> I actually don't think it matters if you have "correctly" framed the
> creationist argument. Supposing the argument had a valid form how
> many creationists would be able to understand it?
> I think that if you can produce ANY valid argument showing that SoF is
> a tautology, then the FAQ must deal directly with that argument.
> That's why I am replying here. I want to be absolutely sure there is
> no way SoF qualifies as a tautology.
What if it does? A valid syllogism can contain a tautology.
Tautologies are not problems to the validity of logic.
There does seem to exist some unholy connotation to
tautologies. The faq needs to dispel that nasty connotation.
backspace
> On Oct 2, 7:03 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 11:35 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps I'm wrong about the essence of the attack.
> > > As it is an errant attack, you can't expect it to be
> > > developed in rigorous detail. However, every such
> > > attack I've seen utilized either, and often both, of the
> > > conflation or presumption I mention directly above.
>
> > The concepts that John Tyndall and Charles Darwin referred to was had
> > two expressions:
> > 1) Natural selection
> > 2) SoF
>
> > Darwin said that SoF was a better expression. We can have many terms,
> > words and sentences for a single idea. Remember that SoF and NS don't
> > mean anything, only the idea the represented in 1870 by John Tyndall
>
> Nonsense. You have repeatedly been told about differential
> reproductive success, but you remain willfully ignorant.
Darwin never said DRS.
> > had meaning. SoF <=> NS back in 1870. It might not today,but it did
> > back then . The question is why are we using the terms from 1870 to
> > describe ideas we know today and concepts that Tyndall and Darwin
> > didn't even know about?
> Because things change. What is so hard to grasp about that? We do not
> need Darwin's terms or definitions; we can make our own, and we have.
> > an idea . This idea Darwin identified as that of Aristotle , he wrote
> > after quoting him: ".... we can see here the principle of natural
> > selection shadowed forth...."
>
> > Darwin and John Tyndall could not have solved a problem they couldn't
> > define and neither could Aristotle, because it is actually Aristotle's
>
> Darwin solved a problem without knowing the underlying genetic
> mechanism.
How? Cite the pages from OoS where he solved a problem he could not
define.
Kermit
> http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/w...
Did you notice that your quote shows a couple of examples or sentences
which are in the form of tautologies really are not? More importantly,
an assertion about a natural process is not a tautology simply because
someone who is uneducated in the field and hostile to learning
misrepresents it.
Kermit
Ernest Major
<d8695195-de1a-4950...@g10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> writes
earlier writer. Darwin did say that selection wasn't the be-all and
end-all of evolution, but the above doesn't obviously match drift
("vary" would be the wrong word for a description of drift). It better
fits a greatly overestimated mutation pressure. Perhaps Darwin's meaning
could be inferred if the context is examined.
--
alias Ernest Major
ivar
> I refer you to the Coulter quote where she specifically
> cites the 2nd prong of Darwin's theory.
>
> I believe it refers to something like this:
> prong 1 Variability exists in populations
> prong 2 Variations that are fitter produce more offspring
> prong 3 Some of these variations are inheritable
> Conclusion Populations will evolve biased toward these
> favored inheritable variations.
>
> Alternative casting of the logic are possible with the
> same essential theory of NS at play. The whole is NS,
> prong 2 is SoF.
Actually, I think Coulter's "prongs" are these (from pages 202 and 203
of Godless):
"The 'theory' of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly improbable)
2. Natural selection weeding out the 'less fit' animals (pointless
tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150
years of looking)"
Ivar
ivar
> a tautology, then the FAQ must deal directly with that argument.
> That's why I am replying here. I want to be absolutely sure there is
> no way SoF qualifies as a tautology.
If you use Coulter's definition of "fittest" as "the ones who
survive," then "SoF qualifies as a [logical] tautology."
Ivar
backspace
Correct, but if you say "what happens, happens and therefore our
ancestor was a monkey that looked like a human" then it becomes a
rhetorical tautology(type3) : the conclusion is a non-sequitur.
backspace
tautology1 or tautology3 ?
Ernest Major
<35a411f7-d0a1-40fe...@p26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> writes
pair of other rhetorical fallacies - the straw man and the red herring.
Your pragmatic incompetence in the English language, real or feigned, is
not an argument against the factuality of common descent with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other
processes.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
> Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 2, 10:03 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 4:35 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 2, 3:23 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>>> Rather than responding to your well edited points, snipped
>>>> to this.
>>> No problem, but I cannot see that you have made any valid points.
>>>
>>>>> I have been unable to find evidence that NS and SoF are not
>>>>> commonly used interchangeably, as Darwin first used the terms.
>>> From this I expected you would try and show that NS and SoF are not
>>> synonyms.
>> I just realized that NS could be a container including SoF because NS
>> might reasonably include drift, while SoF with its reference to
>> "fitness" could not. I'll have to adjust the FAQ for that.
>
> No, NS does not *include* drift. Drift is at least the *absence* of
> selection pressure on a population of smallish size.
(For all values of smallish not equal to infinity.)
> At the most, drift
> is a totally different mechanism to selection (but I think it is the
> inverse of selection).
Well, at least it isn't selection.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
.."
>
>Darwin and John Tyndall could not have solved a problem they couldn't
>define and neither could Aristotle, because it is actually Aristotle's
>concept we are dealing with
actually it's not. differential reproduction was never mentioned by
aristotle, and empiricism was also never mentioned by aristotle
backspace is a blithering idiot. contrained by the voices he hears to
condemn modern science without understanding how it works.
he completely ignores the evidence that every scientist since darwin
has collected regarding evolution. he does so because 'evidence' is
irrelevant to him. testing an idea can not fit into his worldview of
religious fanaticism.
he centers his objections on aristotle, not understanding that
aristotile is irrlevant to evolution.
.. Thus we must go back to the concept of
>Aristotle which Darwin reformulated throughout his book representing
>Aristotle's ideas under the symbol string NS and SoF...
>
>Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
because you're wrong. you dont understand aristotle. you don't
understand empiricism and all you have left is a 3rd century view of
religion
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 3, 3:18 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 7:03 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 2, 11:35 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Perhaps I'm wrong about the essence of the attack.
>> > > As it is an errant attack, you can't expect it to be
>> > > developed in rigorous detail. However, every such
>> > > attack I've seen utilized either, and often both, of the
>> > > conflation or presumption I mention directly above.
>>
>> > The concepts that John Tyndall and Charles Darwin referred to was had
>> > two expressions:
>> > 1) Natural selection
>> > 2) SoF
>>
>> > Darwin said that SoF was a better expression. We can have many terms,
>> > words and sentences for a single idea. Remember that SoF and NS don't
>> > mean anything, only the idea the represented in 1870 by John Tyndall
>>
>> Nonsense. You have repeatedly been told about differential
>> reproductive success, but you remain willfully ignorant.
>
>Darwin never said DRS.
no one cares. that he never used those words is irrelevant. it may be
relevant to YOU since you have an authority based view of reality. but
to normal people, testing an idea is logical.
>>
>> Darwin solved a problem without knowing the underlying genetic
>> mechanism.
>
>How? Cite the pages from OoS where he solved a problem he could not
>define.
he didn't have to define genetics. you dont understand what darwin
did. you have no comprehension at all. none.
>
backspace
> In message
> <35a411f7-d0a1-40fe-9a6a-6ba922b42...@p26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> writes
1) The engineer modified the plan.
2) The tornado modified the city.
Are you using modified in the sense of 1 or 2?
chris thompson
> On Oct 3, 3:18 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 7:03 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 2, 11:35 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Perhaps I'm wrong about the essence of the attack.
> > > > As it is an errant attack, you can't expect it to be
> > > > developed in rigorous detail. However, every such
> > > > attack I've seen utilized either, and often both, of the
> > > > conflation or presumption I mention directly above.
>
> > > The concepts that John Tyndall and Charles Darwin referred to was had
> > > two expressions:
> > > 1) Natural selection
> > > 2) SoF
>
> > > Darwin said that SoF was a better expression. We can have many terms,
> > > words and sentences for a single idea. Remember that SoF and NS don't
> > > mean anything, only the idea the represented in 1870 by John Tyndall
>
> > Nonsense. You have repeatedly been told about differential
> > reproductive success, but you remain willfully ignorant.
>
> Darwin never said DRS.
Which is totally irrelevant. Darwin never said "Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke
Ptang Zoo Boing Zow Zing!" either, but we still wound up with _Monty
Python and the Holy Grail".
>
> > > had meaning. SoF <=> NS back in 1870. It might not today,but it did
> > > back then . The question is why are we using the terms from 1870 to
> > > describe ideas we know today and concepts that Tyndall and Darwin
> > > didn't even know about?
> > Because things change. What is so hard to grasp about that? We do not
> > need Darwin's terms or definitions; we can make our own, and we have.
> > > an idea . This idea Darwin identified as that of Aristotle , he wrote
> > > after quoting him: ".... we can see here the principle of natural
> > > selection shadowed forth...."
>
> > > Darwin and John Tyndall could not have solved a problem they couldn't
> > > define and neither could Aristotle, because it is actually Aristotle's
>
> > Darwin solved a problem without knowing the underlying genetic
> > mechanism.
>
> How? Cite the pages from OoS where he solved a problem he could not
> define.
I don't need to cite pages. The whole book is a description of how
organisms change over time. Do you dispute that they change? It took
until we had a better explanation of genetics to more fully understand
the process, but so what? Alfred Wegener solved a bunch of problems
(like why South America and Africa seem to fit together like a jigsaw
puzzle and why there are identical fossils on the east coast of the
former and west coast of the latter. Wegener did this with no
understanding of plate tectonics, but he got it right.
Chris
Ernest Major
<b5c0a185-c473-456d...@n26g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> writes
John Falsename
> After more than a year, I have finally gotten around to preparing the
> Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
>
> Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
> If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
>
> I don't know the real or full names of many of the people acknowledged
> at the end, so if you'd like your real name used then tell me what it
> is either here or in a private email to eliasrk(at)gmail.com and I
> will modify. Also if you feel you made a contribution that and I did
> not acknowledge you (a real possibility) drop me an email and I will
> almost certainly add you.
>
> For reference here are all the threads containing discussions:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ee57160...http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/87d5183...http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/16ba034...http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/419cbe8...http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/4739761...
>
> however I am pretty sure Google has mis-indexed some posts so they are
> effectively lost.
>
> John mentioned keeping the existing FAQ,
> located here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> in the archive for reference.
>
> If you (John) would like me to add a pointer to the new location, tell
> me what you want and how your original will be designated, and I can
> add the link before the FAQ is copied out of my ability to modify it
> further.
>
> Note the original is also referenced from here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
>
> If you'd like I could modify copies of that page too, in whatever way
> you specify, so it can be copied back into the archive.
So are we all in agreement that this argument is dead? How many
Creationists still use this argument? I recall a list of arguments
even Creationists say not to use. Is this one of them (Evolution being
a tautology).
backspace
1) The engineer changed the shape of the boat to make it more
streamlined.
2) The tornado changed the shape of the house.
Are you using change in terms of 1 or 2? (design or pattern)
> It took until we had a better explanation of genetics to more fully understand
> the process, but so what?
The process is life itself, something which Prof.Cleland from NASA has
explained isn't defined within materialism. You can't explain
something you can't define. What is Life?
> Alfred Wegener solved a bunch of problems
> (like why South America and Africa seem to fit together like a jigsaw
> puzzle and why there are identical fossils on the east coast of the
> former and west coast of the latter. Wegener did this with no
> understanding of plate tectonics, but he got it right.
A poodle and Great Dane are of the same species but their anatomy and
size differs by order of magnitude. How do you know that a fossil from
Europe and Australia dated to 1bil aren't of the same species?
backspace
> On Sep 16, 5:25 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > After more than a year, I have finally gotten around to preparing the
> > Tautology FAQ for placement in the TO web site archives.
>
> > Criticism of all types are welcome/encouraged.
> > If you think the FAQ is fine as it is, I'd like to hear that too.
>
> > I don't know the real or full names of many of the people acknowledged
> > at the end, so if you'd like your real name used then tell me what it
> > is either here or in a private email to eliasrk(at)gmail.com and I
> > will modify. Also if you feel you made a contribution that and I did
> > not acknowledge you (a real possibility) drop me an email and I will
> > almost certainly add you.
>
> > For reference here are all the threads containing discussions:
>
>
> > however I am pretty sure Google has mis-indexed some posts so they are
> > effectively lost.
>
> > John mentioned keeping the existing FAQ,
> > located here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> > in the archive for reference.
>
> > If you (John) would like me to add a pointer to the new location, tell
> > me what you want and how your original will be designated, and I can
> > add the link before the FAQ is copied out of my ability to modify it
> > further.
>
> > Note the original is also referenced from here:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
>
> > If you'd like I could modify copies of that page too, in whatever way
> > you specify, so it can be copied back into the archive.
>
> So are we all in agreement that this argument is dead? How many
> Creationists still use this argument? I recall a list of arguments
> even Creationists say not to use. Is this one of them (Evolution being
> a tautology).
Note that Tautology1(type 1) is a necessary truth, not a theory.
Theories are not truths but potentially falsifiable. A logical
validity in contrast can't be refuted nor verified. Evolutionary
explanations are a collection of truisms, devoid of any empiricism
from which follow non-sequiturs. The conclusion might be correct,
perhaps we did come from monkeys, but not as result of logical
deduction from the argumentation schema used.
The narration schema involving NS, SoF, ToE ; expanded to included ,
Developmental plasticityx
phenotypic accommodation and genetic accommodation etc. are a
collection of pseudo sophisticated weasel words that reduces to: what
will be, will be
* http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/37e8006cf9a3e9e1?hl=en
"One thing that should be noted, is that in logic a tautology is
something that is _true by definition_. If natural selection _were_ a
tautology, that would mean it had to be true, which is perhaps a
conclusion creationists would not want to reach" (John Wilkins, 2009).
* http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/03/can_a_christian_accept_natural.php
"I once sat across the table from Alex Rosenberg, a well known
philosopher, who argued persuasively that one cannot be both a
Christian and accept natural selection. I think Alex intended this as
a reductio for Christianity, as natural selection is both true by
definition and also observed in the real world (John Wilkins, 2008).
* http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16b4ceb7060da56b?hl=en
"If Ray wonders why I said NS is true by definition, it is" (John
Wilkins, 2009)
Friar Broccoli
> "One thing that should be noted, is that in logic a tautology is
> something that is _true by definition_. If natural selection _were_ a
> tautology, that would mean it had to be true, which is perhaps a
> conclusion creationists would not want to reach" (John Wilkins, 2009).
>
> "I once sat across the table from Alex Rosenberg, a well known
> philosopher, who argued persuasively that one cannot be both a
> Christian and accept natural selection. I think Alex intended this as
> a reductio for Christianity, as natural selection is both true by
> definition and also observed in the real world (John Wilkins, 2008).
>
> "If Ray wonders why I said NS is true by definition, it is" (John
> Wilkins, 2009)
Backspace:
The link Mr. Falsename needs is this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/37e8006cf9a3e9e1
For comparison note the Pythagorean theorem:
In any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the
hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of
the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs (the two sides
that meet at a right angles).
The Pythagorean theorem is also true by definition, but the definition
is derived from OBSERVATION of the real world. It's truth (and the
definition) is contingent on observation.
backspace
A logical validity isn't a definition or theorem. What you stated was
a theorem not a logical validity because it can be verified and is
falsifiable. The following by Aristotle is not:
".....Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the
parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of
something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted
by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus
constituted, perished and still perish...."
rephrase:
"...these were preserved, ,,, constituted by an internal
spontaneity(FITNESS); and whatsoever things were not thus constituted,
perished and still perish...."
rephrase:
"...these were preserved constituted by an internal FITNESS; and
whatsoever things were not thus FIT, perished and still perish....'
rephrase:
"...the ones preserved were constituted by an internal FITNESS; and
those not FIT, perished ..."
rephrase:
"...the ones preserved had FITNESS; and those not FIT, died ..."
rephrase:
What happens, happens.
The fit ones indeed are preserved, preserved and fit allude to the
same fact it is validity not a theory. We want a theory of evolution,
not a series of truisms.