Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Replacement for deleted section in Tautology FAQ
50 views
Skip to first unread message
Friar Broccoli
Jan 10, 2013, 3:56:31 PM1/10/13
to
Below is a proposed insert describing what Tautologies are in the FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
It is intended to be inserted after the section titled:
"Sometimes survival isn't determined by fitness"
There is one issue I specifically want comments on:
On SoF as a mathematical tautology I said:
2) If a creationist wants to claim that SoF is a tautology in the same
sense that a mathematical formulation is, they are conceding that SoF
can be verified, because mathematical statements which model real world
events are verifiable.
However, one of the key reasons I tore out the previous section was
Deadrat's comment from here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2dd45903656d15f6?
that:
DR> When we write m=F/a, we relate mass, the amount of matter, to force
DR> (independently determined depending on the type of force, say
DR> gravitational or electromagnetic) and acceleration (a change in
DR> velocity). So not every equation is a tautology.
DR> Unfortunately for this section, Wabs is a tautology, since it's
DR> just a convenient renaming of a quotient.
so if Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore accurately reflects SoF then my argument may
be
misleading or false.
Consequently suggestions on alternative ways of handling this point
would be appreciated.
_____________________ Start of proposed addition
____________________________
What is a tautology?
There is no universally agreed single definition of tautology, nor is it
obvious how the various meanings of tautology relate to each other.
Etymologically the word comes from the Greek tauto, "the same" and
logos, "word or idea". The first known use, in the sixteenth century,
referred to vain or empty repetition of meaning. Subsequently the word
was imported into logic where it is has been given the far more precise
meaning of a statement that is true under every possible interpretation
- thus one can know a statement is true or false even if one has no idea
what the words refer to.
Detailed discussions of the meaning of tautology in the context of
evolution invariably become impossible tangles of arguments built on
debatable suppositions. To sidestep this labyrinth here are four common
examples of statements that are often described as tautologies:
1) Logical: It will rain tomorrow or it will not (P or ~P)
2) Mathematical: 2 + 3 = 5, F=Ma
3) Definitional: Bachelor's are unmarried men.
4) Redundancy: the gift is free
1) No serious thinker believes that SoF is in any way a logical
tautology because, among other things, it must be possible to place the
terms in SoF in a truth table for evaluation. The statement "Survival of
the Fittest" does not have the form needed to do this.
2) If a creationist wants to claim that SoF is a tautology in the same
sense that a mathematical formulation is, they are conceding that SoF
can be verified, because mathematical statements which model real world
events are verifiable.
3) Creationists often try to argue that fitness is defined by survival
but that cannot be maintained because we know what the terms actually
refer to. Fitness is an estimate of the likelihood of survival based on
a summation of all the individual (and competing) characteristics
(speed, digestive efficiency, intelligence, sexiness etc) that compose
fitness, while survival, in this context, means continuing reproductive
success.
Succinctly: The likelihood of survival is not the same as actual
survival defined as continuing reproductive success. And fit
characteristics are casually linked to survival.
4) When creationists actually specify what type of tautology they are
talking about, it is often redundancy. Unfortunately since there are
many types of redundancy (synonym/identity, adjective/property) that
designation by itself isn't obviously helpful. In practice what this
argument usually reduces to the definitional claim (like 3 above)
summarized in the question:
"How do you define fitness except as survival?"
It can seem difficult to provide a creationist with a clear and
convincing reply to this question. The cause of this apparent difficulty
is the statistical nature of the reply. Estimates of fitness will always
include uncertainty as is the case in other areas like weather
reporting. However a creationist will typically want to insist on a
prediction that is as certain as a planet's orbit.
The primary reason why fitness of characteristics is difficult to
predict is because fitness is not a distinct property, it is composed of
a long list of often competing attributes related to:
- movement
- defence/capture
- camouflage
- detection/perception
- digestion
- temperature and chemical balance
- immunity
- reproduction
Thus, for example, one would be inclined to predict that an animal which
is slow moving and good to eat, will be fit only if it blends in with
its environment, but we know that there are a whole class of butterflies
that are brightly coloured in a way that mimics poisonous species.
Thus fitness like intelligence is a single designation for a class of
possible behaviours, which will sometimes work in surprising ways. The
consequences of such a wide array of competing characteristics can be
predicted only probabilistically.
Solubility of the Solutes (SoS - A word game)
Another way to conceptualize the tautology argument is to find a clear
statement that has the properties that creationists would like to
ascribe to SoF. Solubility of the Solutes (SoS) appears to fill this
role and thus highlights a number of features of SoF.
First, it isn't at all clear what SoS could be asserting. Similarly,
taken in isolation, it isn't at all clear what SoF might be asserting.
This highlights the fact that SoF is not the theory but rather a label
used to designate part of Darwin's theory. Attacking the label as being
a tautology is simply an empty word game.
SoS could be taken as asserting that there are such things a solutes and
solvents. Interestingly in some cases it isn't clear which of two
materials is the solute and which the solvent, However that linguistic
ambiguity is not a valid reason for doubting that substances cannot go
into solution. The existence of solutes (or fitness) and the process of
dissolving (or survival) can only be determined by observing events in
the real world.
_____________________ End of proposed addition
____________________________
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
It is intended to be inserted after the section titled:
"Sometimes survival isn't determined by fitness"
There is one issue I specifically want comments on:
On SoF as a mathematical tautology I said:
2) If a creationist wants to claim that SoF is a tautology in the same
sense that a mathematical formulation is, they are conceding that SoF
can be verified, because mathematical statements which model real world
events are verifiable.
However, one of the key reasons I tore out the previous section was
Deadrat's comment from here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2dd45903656d15f6?
that:
DR> When we write m=F/a, we relate mass, the amount of matter, to force
DR> (independently determined depending on the type of force, say
DR> gravitational or electromagnetic) and acceleration (a change in
DR> velocity). So not every equation is a tautology.
DR> Unfortunately for this section, Wabs is a tautology, since it's
DR> just a convenient renaming of a quotient.
so if Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore accurately reflects SoF then my argument may
be
misleading or false.
Consequently suggestions on alternative ways of handling this point
would be appreciated.
_____________________ Start of proposed addition
____________________________
What is a tautology?
There is no universally agreed single definition of tautology, nor is it
obvious how the various meanings of tautology relate to each other.
Etymologically the word comes from the Greek tauto, "the same" and
logos, "word or idea". The first known use, in the sixteenth century,
referred to vain or empty repetition of meaning. Subsequently the word
was imported into logic where it is has been given the far more precise
meaning of a statement that is true under every possible interpretation
- thus one can know a statement is true or false even if one has no idea
what the words refer to.
Detailed discussions of the meaning of tautology in the context of
evolution invariably become impossible tangles of arguments built on
debatable suppositions. To sidestep this labyrinth here are four common
examples of statements that are often described as tautologies:
1) Logical: It will rain tomorrow or it will not (P or ~P)
2) Mathematical: 2 + 3 = 5, F=Ma
3) Definitional: Bachelor's are unmarried men.
4) Redundancy: the gift is free
1) No serious thinker believes that SoF is in any way a logical
tautology because, among other things, it must be possible to place the
terms in SoF in a truth table for evaluation. The statement "Survival of
the Fittest" does not have the form needed to do this.
2) If a creationist wants to claim that SoF is a tautology in the same
sense that a mathematical formulation is, they are conceding that SoF
can be verified, because mathematical statements which model real world
events are verifiable.
3) Creationists often try to argue that fitness is defined by survival
but that cannot be maintained because we know what the terms actually
refer to. Fitness is an estimate of the likelihood of survival based on
a summation of all the individual (and competing) characteristics
(speed, digestive efficiency, intelligence, sexiness etc) that compose
fitness, while survival, in this context, means continuing reproductive
success.
Succinctly: The likelihood of survival is not the same as actual
survival defined as continuing reproductive success. And fit
characteristics are casually linked to survival.
4) When creationists actually specify what type of tautology they are
talking about, it is often redundancy. Unfortunately since there are
many types of redundancy (synonym/identity, adjective/property) that
designation by itself isn't obviously helpful. In practice what this
argument usually reduces to the definitional claim (like 3 above)
summarized in the question:
"How do you define fitness except as survival?"
It can seem difficult to provide a creationist with a clear and
convincing reply to this question. The cause of this apparent difficulty
is the statistical nature of the reply. Estimates of fitness will always
include uncertainty as is the case in other areas like weather
reporting. However a creationist will typically want to insist on a
prediction that is as certain as a planet's orbit.
The primary reason why fitness of characteristics is difficult to
predict is because fitness is not a distinct property, it is composed of
a long list of often competing attributes related to:
- movement
- defence/capture
- camouflage
- detection/perception
- digestion
- temperature and chemical balance
- immunity
- reproduction
Thus, for example, one would be inclined to predict that an animal which
is slow moving and good to eat, will be fit only if it blends in with
its environment, but we know that there are a whole class of butterflies
that are brightly coloured in a way that mimics poisonous species.
Thus fitness like intelligence is a single designation for a class of
possible behaviours, which will sometimes work in surprising ways. The
consequences of such a wide array of competing characteristics can be
predicted only probabilistically.
Solubility of the Solutes (SoS - A word game)
Another way to conceptualize the tautology argument is to find a clear
statement that has the properties that creationists would like to
ascribe to SoF. Solubility of the Solutes (SoS) appears to fill this
role and thus highlights a number of features of SoF.
First, it isn't at all clear what SoS could be asserting. Similarly,
taken in isolation, it isn't at all clear what SoF might be asserting.
This highlights the fact that SoF is not the theory but rather a label
used to designate part of Darwin's theory. Attacking the label as being
a tautology is simply an empty word game.
SoS could be taken as asserting that there are such things a solutes and
solvents. Interestingly in some cases it isn't clear which of two
materials is the solute and which the solvent, However that linguistic
ambiguity is not a valid reason for doubting that substances cannot go
into solution. The existence of solutes (or fitness) and the process of
dissolving (or survival) can only be determined by observing events in
the real world.
_____________________ End of proposed addition
____________________________
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Bill
Jan 10, 2013, 5:02:27 PM1/10/13
to
difficulty is in the probabilistic character of survival. The problem
is that talking about survival of the fittest commits us to a research
program designed to identify characteristics that make sense to us as
enhancing fitness (strength, speed, camouflage, fertility, etc.) That
is as it should be. The claim that the fittest survive implies that if
two organisms are competing and one is out-reproducing the other, we
should be able to identify characteristics that enhance fitness which
are present in the winning organism. Then we can try to do experiments
to isolate the relevant factors and on and on we go.
This is analogous to F = ma. When a physicist sees that equation and
applies it he does not simply measure the acceleration of an object
and its mass and rest content saying "Ah, now I know the net force is
m*a, I'm done." Rather he tries to identify the specific
gravitational, electromagnetic, and strong or weak forces which
combine to produce the observed net force and acceleration. If his
first attempt does not add up, he hypothesizes (because he trusts that
F=ma is indeed a correct law) that he has overlooked some force.
Similarly, when you say the fittest survive you mean that is one
population (on average, statistically) out-reproduces another, then it
must be more fit. That means that if you cannot identify
characteristics responsible for its greater fitness, you are missing
something.
What this means is that in both the case of force and of fitness,
scientists are using intuitive notions of force or fitness rather than
defining them tautologically as F=ma or "fitness = differential
reproductive success." It is a bit messy and open-ended, but whether
the creationists like it or not, messy and open-ended is the way
science works.
John Harshman
Jan 10, 2013, 5:25:38 PM1/10/13
to
of the fittest". You can force it to fit by defining it as you do here,
to mean reproductive success. But nobody defines survival that way.
Survival is binary, reproductive success quantitative. I would get
"survival" out of the way early on by explaining that survival isn't
what fitness is really about, and then stop talking about it.
> Succinctly: The likelihood of survival is not the same as actual
> survival defined as continuing reproductive success. And fit
> characteristics are casually linked to survival.
stochastic input to realized fitness. "The race is not always to the
swift, nor victory to the strong, but time and chance happeneth to all."
> Solubility of the Solutes (SoS - A word game)
>
> Another way to conceptualize the tautology argument is to find a clear
> statement that has the properties that creationists would like to
> ascribe to SoF. Solubility of the Solutes (SoS) appears to fill this
> role and thus highlights a number of features of SoF.
>
> First, it isn't at all clear what SoS could be asserting. Similarly,
> taken in isolation, it isn't at all clear what SoF might be asserting.
> This highlights the fact that SoF is not the theory but rather a label
> used to designate part of Darwin's theory. Attacking the label as being
> a tautology is simply an empty word game.
>
> SoS could be taken as asserting that there are such things a solutes and
> solvents. Interestingly in some cases it isn't clear which of two
> materials is the solute and which the solvent, However that linguistic
> ambiguity is not a valid reason for doubting that substances cannot go
> into solution. The existence of solutes (or fitness) and the process of
> dissolving (or survival) can only be determined by observing events in
> the real world.
like the example, but a proper formulation would be "dissolving of the
most soluble". How do you know what's most soluble? Because it dissolves
most easily. And yet this statement has empirical content, because the
same substances reliably dissolve most easily under the same conditions.
There actually is a real property of solubility, which varies among
substances. The same with "survival [urk] of the fittest": there
actually is a real property of fitness, which varies among genotypes.
John Harshman
Jan 10, 2013, 5:27:48 PM1/10/13
to
reproductive success of genotypes within populations, not a measure of
the expected reproductive success of different populations. Unless by
"population" you mean "sample of similar genotypes", which would be a
poor word choice, as "population" has quite a different meaning in
evolutionary biology.
Friar Broccoli
Jan 12, 2013, 1:31:29 PM1/12/13
to
would appear to be an attempt to evade the central issue, since the
entire attack is against the expression "Survival of the Fittest".
Also I assume:
"Survival is binary, reproductive success quantitative"
means:
survival is a subset of reproductive success.
Since removing the word survival would require a complete rewrite of the
FAQ (do you *really* want that?) I suggest a footnote to the first use.
>
>> Succinctly: The likelihood of survival is not the same as actual
>> survival defined as continuing reproductive success. And fit
>> characteristics are casually linked to survival.
>
>Causally?
modified it slightly as follows:
Since SoF means "Survival of the most Fit" the analogy may be better
expressed as "Mixing of the Most soluble" (MoMs) How do you know what's
most soluble? Because it mixes most easily. Yet this statement has
empirical content, because the same substances reliably mix most easily
under the same conditions. There actually is a real property of
solubility, which varies among substances. The same with "survival of
the fittest": there actually is a real property of fitness, which has
been shown to vary among genotypes in populations.
Friar Broccoli
Jan 12, 2013, 1:49:16 PM1/12/13
to
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:02:27 -0800 (PST), Bill <broger...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I will need to think about this more, but concerning the lead question
of interest to me, you appear to be saying that:
Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore
does not fully capture SoF because Wabs must be capturing a real and
assessable characteristic in a real environment. If Nafter is an Otter
with thinner fur in a colder environment, we are missing something.
wrote:
of interest to me, you appear to be saying that:
Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore
does not fully capture SoF because Wabs must be capturing a real and
assessable characteristic in a real environment. If Nafter is an Otter
with thinner fur in a colder environment, we are missing something.
Bill
Jan 12, 2013, 1:58:37 PM1/12/13
to
On Jan 13, 1:49�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:02:27 -0800 (PST), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
Yes, you've got my drift.
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:02:27 -0800 (PST), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
Stephanus
Jan 12, 2013, 3:23:25 PM1/12/13
to
>On Jan 10, 8:56 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Detailed discussions of the meaning of tautology in the context of
> evolution invariably become impossible tangles of arguments built on
> debatable suppositions.
The context is logical necessities or logical tautologies and
> Detailed discussions of the meaning of tautology in the context of
> evolution invariably become impossible tangles of arguments built on
> debatable suppositions.
rhetorical tautologies as I defined it on the main Wikipedia
rhetorical
tautology page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_tautology
>To sidestep this labyrinth here are four common
> examples of statements that are often described as tautologies:
> 1) Logical: It will rain tomorrow or it will not (P or ~P)
experienced, by the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not
falsifiable.
> 2) Mathematical: 2 + 3 = 5
ambiguity with numbers. In one context they are logical truths
but in physics context they express how objects interact. See
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Fleeming_Jenkin and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradox
''''......The mathematical relations between numbers and magnitudes in
geometry involve the comparison of dimensions which are things. But
where mathematics deal with the relations between symbols, whether
algebraic or numerical, they do not compare things. They essentially
substitute a symbol for the thing itself, and use the symbols to
facilitate not measurement but ratiocination concerning measurements.
Number is not an object, a condition, a property, an attribute, or
even an abstraction. Numbers ex press the result of measurement; they
cannot themselves be measured. The relation between them is stated
when they are stated. The very conception of number involves the
assumption that two things can be identical, or may for a special
purpose be regarded as identical. This is neither the result of
abstraction nor reasoning ; it is merely a short way of saying that
any four things which we choose to regard as identical, may be
counted in two ways, described as regards number in two different
phrases .(...this last sentence I don't understand by Fleeming) ....''
F=Ma
Physics equations are not tautologies, this equation express the
relationship between acceleration and mass, *symbolically* using
numbers. Logical validities such as 1+2 = 3 expresses a necessary
truth *symbolically* . 1apple + 2apple = 1 unit of apple juice in a
blender. 2H + 1o = 1 water molecule. The tests we do to express the
interaction of actual entities are falsifiable, the symbolic
representation in many cases reflect the symbolic representation of
logical validities. Therefore Berry's paradox style subscripts must be
used to differentiate:
1) The expression of logical necessities using symbols which
themselves cannot be measured. = 1subl + 2subl = 3subl
2) The ratiocination of the measurement of things using the same
symbols. - 1subp + 2subp = 1 water molecule
Subscript - l -> Logical validity
Subscript - p -> physics
Therefore falsifiability is a subset of unfalsifiability because all
falsifiable physics equations assume logical necessities.
Stephanus
Jan 12, 2013, 3:31:20 PM1/12/13
to
On Jan 12, 6:31�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since SoF means "Survival of the most Fit" the analogy may be better
> expressed as "Mixing of the Most soluble" (MoMs) �How do you know what's
> Since SoF means "Survival of the most Fit" the analogy may be better
> most soluble? Because it mixes most easily. �Yet this statement has
> empirical content, because the same substances reliably mix most easily
> under the same conditions. There actually is a real property of
> solubility, which varies among substances. The same with "survival of
> the fittest": there actually is a real property of fitness, which has
> been shown to vary among genotypes in populations.
Depends who you are referring to. Natural Selection was used as the
> under the same conditions. There actually is a real property of
> solubility, which varies among substances. The same with "survival of
> the fittest": there actually is a real property of fitness, which has
> been shown to vary among genotypes in populations.
metaphor for SoF by Darwin on Wallace insistence.
Anybody can use SoF in any context, the actual term has no meaning, it
is the idea that it represented by an author. Since you are not
referring
to Darwin, Spencer but are using their terminology we have same
confusion as if Hawkins would use phlogiston theory when he actually
means quantum theory.
In other words we have a form mental illness and delusion on display.
It is like a person insisting that ''You have a green light" always
means you can drive your car. The only meaning we are dealing with was
the actual meaning the authors intended in 1860.
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Wallace_Letter_to_Darwin_on_natural_selection
Wallace: "....My dear Darwin,� I have been so repeatedly struck by the
utter inability of number of intelligent persons to see clearly, or at
all, the self-acting and necessary effects of Natural Selection, that
I am led to conclude that the term itself, and your mode of
illustrating it however beautiful to many of us, are yet not the best
adapted to impress it on the general naturalistic public...I think
[the difficulty in understanding] arises almost entirely from your
choice of the term Natural Selection, and so constantly comparing it
in its effects to man's selection, and also to your so frequently
personifying nature as 'selecting', as 'preferring', 'as seeking only
the good of the species', etc., etc. To the few this is as clear as
daylight, and beautifully suggestive, but to many it is evidently a
stumbling block....I wish, therefore to suggest to you the possibility
of entirely avoiding this source of misconception in your great work
(if now not too late)...by adopting Spencer's term viz. 'Survival of
the Fittest'. This term is a plain expression of the fact; 'Natural
Selection' is a metaphorical expression of it, and to a certain degree
indirect and incorrect, since, even personifying Nature, she does not
so much select special variations as exterminate the most unfavourable
ones. ..." "....even personifying Nature, she does not so much select
special variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones. ..."
Notes Edit
Other than noting that certain variations were exterminated how was
their unfavorability measured by Wallace ?
John Harshman
Jan 12, 2013, 5:14:34 PM1/12/13
to
a synonym for natural selection, unless we're talking about survival of
genes. The creationist attack isn't really about the wording; it's about
the concept of natural selection.
omission that the variance in fitness is entirely due to deterministic
factors.
different things. It's beaten into students at the high school level, if
not earlier, that mixtures and solutions are different things.
Friar Broccoli
Jan 12, 2013, 9:50:13 PM1/12/13
to
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:31:20 -0800 (PST), Stephanus
<srens...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Other than noting that certain variations were exterminated how was
>their unfavorability measured by Wallace ?
While in some cases it is possible to make such measurements - the
<srens...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Other than noting that certain variations were exterminated how was
>their unfavorability measured by Wallace ?
reduced weight in extremities for running efficiency for example - I
doubt that Wallace used anything more than common sense. He almost
certainly realized that none of the other imaginable explanations made
any sense.
Can you provide a coherent alternative account? If so I will be happy
to continue this discussion. If you have no alternative model then you
have no case and I will not be following up your reply.
So how do (or should) Christians explain the fact that most blind or
three legged animals fail to reproduce their forms?
Stephanus
Jan 13, 2013, 1:40:59 AM1/13/13
to
On Jan 13, 2:50�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:31:20 -0800 (PST), Stephanus
>
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:31:20 -0800 (PST), Stephanus
>
> <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Other than noting that certain variations were exterminated how was
> >their unfavorability measured by Wallace ?
>
> While in some cases it is possible to make such measurements - the
> reduced weight in extremities for running efficiency for example - I
> doubt that Wallace used anything more than common sense.
precisely , it is common sense that the unfavorable ones are
> >Other than noting that certain variations were exterminated how was
> >their unfavorability measured by Wallace ?
>
> While in some cases it is possible to make such measurements - the
> reduced weight in extremities for running efficiency for example - I
> doubt that Wallace used anything more than common sense.
exterminated and favorable ones preserved - this is a claim of logic
and therefore
not testable.
Friar Broccoli
Jan 13, 2013, 2:11:27 PM1/13/13
to
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:14:34 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 1/12/13 10:31 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> Since removing the word survival would require a complete rewrite of the
>> FAQ (do you *really* want that?) I suggest a footnote to the first use.
.
> Perhaps a note that "survival of the fittest" isn't really all that good
> a synonym for natural selection, unless we're talking about survival of
> genes.
Hmm. I wonder what that means? Whatever it means it sounds like it
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 1/12/13 10:31 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> Since removing the word survival would require a complete rewrite of the
>> FAQ (do you *really* want that?) I suggest a footnote to the first use.
.
> Perhaps a note that "survival of the fittest" isn't really all that good
> a synonym for natural selection, unless we're talking about survival of
> genes.
could result in a very long (and obscure/tortured) footnote.
> The creationist attack isn't really about the wording; it's about
> the concept of natural selection.
- wording/description,
- concept and
- material reality.
Nevertheless I find this statement incoherent. This argument is about
SoF as a tautology. Tautologies, it seems to me, are all about
wording/expressions, and not at all about concepts or underlying
reality.
You pointed out to me that most creationists already accept NS/SoF so
how can you be talking about the concept or reality as being their
problem?
You refer to the "concept of natural selection", but I haven't seen a
single creationist "tautology" attack that didn't focus on SoF, although
many subsequently attempted to import the implication back to include NS
and the rest of evolution. If the problem is the "concept" why are
creationists unable to formulate a tautology argument that refers to NS?
Friar Broccoli
Jan 13, 2013, 4:34:00 PM1/13/13
to
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:11:27 -0500, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:14:34 -0800, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Perhaps a note that "survival of the fittest" isn't really all that good
>> a synonym for natural selection, unless we're talking about survival of
>> genes.
>
>Hmm. I wonder what that means? Whatever it means it sounds like it
>could result in a very long (and obscure/tortured) footnote.
I figured this out. I'll draft something for further discussion.
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:14:34 -0800, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Perhaps a note that "survival of the fittest" isn't really all that good
>> a synonym for natural selection, unless we're talking about survival of
>> genes.
>
>Hmm. I wonder what that means? Whatever it means it sounds like it
>could result in a very long (and obscure/tortured) footnote.
John Harshman
Jan 13, 2013, 8:46:35 PM1/13/13
to
about terminology?
Friar Broccoli
Jan 13, 2013, 9:23:36 PM1/13/13
to
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:46:35 -0800, John Harshman
.
> Because it's easier to talk about SoF.
I don't think it's even possible to make the tautology argument working
from NS.
> Do you really think they care about terminology?
My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
category errors it's hard to know where to start.
I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
> Because it's easier to talk about SoF.
from NS.
> Do you really think they care about terminology?
work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
category errors it's hard to know where to start.
I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
John Harshman
Jan 13, 2013, 11:24:37 PM1/13/13
to
frequency in the population. But how do we tell if genotypes have a
fitness advantage? If they increase in frequency in the population. And
so on.
>> Do you really think they care about terminology?
>
> My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
> work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
> to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
> category errors it's hard to know where to start.
>
> I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
> tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
but on the meaningfulness of the concept of natural selection.
Friar Broccoli
Jan 17, 2013, 12:21:43 PM1/17/13
to
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:24:37 -0800, John Harshman
Beginning from the obvious: To make the argument that the tautology
attack could be made against Natural Selection (NS) you did not use NS
you restated SoF as "fitness advantage [fittest] increase in frequency
[survive]".
I cannot see that importing "fitness" into NS is justified. All that NS
requires is that some character X resulted in increased survival in
individuals carrying that characteristic and therefore the genotype for
the characteristic increased [was selected]. No concept like fitness or
usefulness etc need be added.
So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
formulated against description NS.
>>> Do you really think they care about terminology?
>>
>> My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
>> work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
>> to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
>> category errors it's hard to know where to start.
>>
>> I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
>> tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
.
>Nevertheless, it's intended to be an attack not just on the phrase "SoF"
>but on the meaningfulness of the concept of natural selection.
Sure, and George Bush *intended* that the crusade in Iraq would decrease
Muslim militancy.
attack could be made against Natural Selection (NS) you did not use NS
you restated SoF as "fitness advantage [fittest] increase in frequency
[survive]".
I cannot see that importing "fitness" into NS is justified. All that NS
requires is that some character X resulted in increased survival in
individuals carrying that characteristic and therefore the genotype for
the characteristic increased [was selected]. No concept like fitness or
usefulness etc need be added.
So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
formulated against description NS.
>>> Do you really think they care about terminology?
>>
>> My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
>> work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
>> to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
>> category errors it's hard to know where to start.
>>
>> I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
>> tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
.
>Nevertheless, it's intended to be an attack not just on the phrase "SoF"
>but on the meaningfulness of the concept of natural selection.
Muslim militancy.
John Harshman
Jan 17, 2013, 12:55:49 PM1/17/13
to
scientists who study natural selection actually use here? If your demand
is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point. My point,
on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
and, through that, on evolution.
> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
> formulated against description NS.
that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
>>>> Do you really think they care about terminology?
>>>
>>> My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
>>> work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
>>> to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
>>> category errors it's hard to know where to start.
>>>
>>> I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
>>> tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
>
> .
>
>> Nevertheless, it's intended to be an attack not just on the phrase "SoF"
>> but on the meaningfulness of the concept of natural selection.
>
> Sure, and George Bush *intended* that the crusade in Iraq would decrease
> Muslim militancy.
it's useful to understand what the attack is aimed at.
Friar Broccoli
Jan 17, 2013, 7:38:43 PM1/17/13
to
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:55:49 -0800, John Harshman
I know they make frequent references to fitness, usefulness, benefit
etc. but these are nothing but human constructs overlaying the facts. In
actual research some specific characteristic is associated with
increased/decreased reproductive success. Ideas like "fitness" are
practical for discussion but not foundational.
>If your demand
>is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
>still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point.
I don't think you can make the argument without referring to fitness (or
a synonym) and the reason you cannot is because the tautology argument
is about wording, not substance. More specifics below.
>My point,
>on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
>of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
>and, through that, on evolution.
I believe you are contradicting your own past position. Remember, that
it was you who pointed out to me that when creationists attack NS/SoF
they are attacking the only part of evolution they agree with.
That argument is still in the FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
The section titled: "Most creationists agree that the fittest survive"
How can creationists be attacking [sensibly] a concept they agree with?
Since they are not attacking the [substantive] concept, I suggest they
are attacking the words alone. Indeed a tautology is a reference to an
expressive form (logic, math, language etc). It says that a *statement*
(group of words) is redundant or true regardless of the meaning of its
elements. Content is irrelevant.
>> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
>> formulated against description NS.
>
>I never attempted such a thing, as it's a sterile question. My claim is
>that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
>whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
What does "it" in "it can be formulated" refer to? Tautologies are all
about expressive forms (words), not about underlying concepts.
>>>>> Do you really think they care about terminology?
>>>>
>>>> My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
>>>> work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
>>>> to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
>>>> category errors it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
>>>> tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
>>
>> .
>>
>>> Nevertheless, it's intended to be an attack not just on the phrase "SoF"
>>> but on the meaningfulness of the concept of natural selection.
>>
>> Sure, and George Bush *intended* that the crusade in Iraq would decrease
>> Muslim militancy.
.
>I don't see your point here. In order to deal with a creationist attack,
>it's useful to understand what the attack is aimed at.
I am not clear what your point is about: In your last message you
referred to "it's intended". Here you are referring to "what the attack
is aimed at". Is your point about the intent of the people using the
tautology argument or the argument itself?
etc. but these are nothing but human constructs overlaying the facts. In
actual research some specific characteristic is associated with
increased/decreased reproductive success. Ideas like "fitness" are
practical for discussion but not foundational.
>If your demand
>is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
>still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point.
a synonym) and the reason you cannot is because the tautology argument
is about wording, not substance. More specifics below.
>My point,
>on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
>of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
>and, through that, on evolution.
it was you who pointed out to me that when creationists attack NS/SoF
they are attacking the only part of evolution they agree with.
That argument is still in the FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
The section titled: "Most creationists agree that the fittest survive"
How can creationists be attacking [sensibly] a concept they agree with?
Since they are not attacking the [substantive] concept, I suggest they
are attacking the words alone. Indeed a tautology is a reference to an
expressive form (logic, math, language etc). It says that a *statement*
(group of words) is redundant or true regardless of the meaning of its
elements. Content is irrelevant.
>> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
>> formulated against description NS.
>
>I never attempted such a thing, as it's a sterile question. My claim is
>that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
>whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
about expressive forms (words), not about underlying concepts.
>>>>> Do you really think they care about terminology?
>>>>
>>>> My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
>>>> work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
>>>> to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
>>>> category errors it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
>>>> tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
>>
>> .
>>
>>> Nevertheless, it's intended to be an attack not just on the phrase "SoF"
>>> but on the meaningfulness of the concept of natural selection.
>>
>> Sure, and George Bush *intended* that the crusade in Iraq would decrease
>> Muslim militancy.
.
>I don't see your point here. In order to deal with a creationist attack,
>it's useful to understand what the attack is aimed at.
referred to "it's intended". Here you are referring to "what the attack
is aimed at". Is your point about the intent of the people using the
tautology argument or the argument itself?
John Harshman
Jan 17, 2013, 10:27:35 PM1/17/13
to
territory is not a live issue.
>> If your demand
>> is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
>> still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point.
>
> I don't think you can make the argument without referring to fitness (or
> a synonym) and the reason you cannot is because the tautology argument
> is about wording, not substance. More specifics below.
>> My point,
>> on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
>> of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
>> and, through that, on evolution.
>
> I believe you are contradicting your own past position. Remember, that
> it was you who pointed out to me that when creationists attack NS/SoF
> they are attacking the only part of evolution they agree with.
creationists are self-contradictory all the time.
> That argument is still in the FAQ:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> The section titled: "Most creationists agree that the fittest survive"
>
> How can creationists be attacking [sensibly] a concept they agree with?
> Since they are not attacking the [substantive] concept, I suggest they
> are attacking the words alone. Indeed a tautology is a reference to an
> expressive form (logic, math, language etc). It says that a *statement*
> (group of words) is redundant or true regardless of the meaning of its
> elements. Content is irrelevant.
claiming you shouldn't use the phrase "survival of the fittest", are
they? I might point out that Karl Popper at one point claimed that
natural selection was tautological, and he wasn't even a creationist.
>>> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
>>> formulated against description NS.
>>
>> I never attempted such a thing, as it's a sterile question. My claim is
>> that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
>> whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
>
> What does "it" in "it can be formulated" refer to? Tautologies are all
> about expressive forms (words), not about underlying concepts.
about words, though I don't see why that should be true, but
creationists have claimed that natural selection itself is tautological.
(As, I have already mentioned, did Karl Popper.)
>>>>>> Do you really think they care about terminology?
>>>>>
>>>>> My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
>>>>> work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
>>>>> to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
>>>>> category errors it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
>>>>> tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, it's intended to be an attack not just on the phrase "SoF"
>>>> but on the meaningfulness of the concept of natural selection.
>>>
>>> Sure, and George Bush *intended* that the crusade in Iraq would decrease
>>> Muslim militancy.
>
> .
>
>> I don't see your point here. In order to deal with a creationist attack,
>> it's useful to understand what the attack is aimed at.
>
> I am not clear what your point is about: In your last message you
> referred to "it's intended". Here you are referring to "what the attack
> is aimed at". Is your point about the intent of the people using the
> tautology argument or the argument itself?
of terminology. I really don't think it's just all about the words. If
it were, all you need to do is say that selection can be described in
different words; problem solved. All my comments on this subject, from
the beginning, have been aimed at concepts, not wording.
Friar Broccoli
Jan 18, 2013, 8:56:19 PM1/18/13
to
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:27:35 -0800, John Harshman
I was answering your question.
>>> If your demand
>>> is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
>>> still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point.
>>
>> I don't think you can make the argument without referring to fitness (or
>> a synonym) and the reason you cannot is because the tautology argument
>> is about wording, not substance. More specifics below.
>
>I don't know if I could, but I won't try, since it's pointless.
It would establish that you have a case.
>>> My point,
>>> on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
>>> of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
>>> and, through that, on evolution.
>>
>> I believe you are contradicting your own past position. Remember, that
>> it was you who pointed out to me that when creationists attack NS/SoF
>> they are attacking the only part of evolution they agree with.
>
>I'm not seeing the contradiction. At least not the one on my part;
>creationists are self-contradictory all the time.
You said that the creationist argument is directed against the concept
of NS, but it is not, it is directed against a confused idea or straw
man.
>> That argument is still in the FAQ:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>> The section titled: "Most creationists agree that the fittest survive"
>>
>> How can creationists be attacking [sensibly] a concept they agree with?
>
>That really isn't my problem, but theirs.
Well it is also your problem if you are claiming that their attack is
directed against a realistic concept.
>> Since they are not attacking the [substantive] concept, I suggest they
>> are attacking the words alone. Indeed a tautology is a reference to an
>> expressive form (logic, math, language etc). It says that a *statement*
>> (group of words) is redundant or true regardless of the meaning of its
>> elements. Content is irrelevant.
>
>This may be true about tautologies. But creationists are not just
>claiming you shouldn't use the phrase "survival of the fittest", are
>they? I might point out that Karl Popper at one point claimed that
>natural selection was tautological, and he wasn't even a creationist.
Actually he claimed it was "almost a tautology" see (his recantation):
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html
and according to this article (a short interesting read):
http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution
"Popper takes "survival of the fittest" as the definition of natural
selection"
and this paragraph from his recantation strongly suggests that that is
exactly what he did:
"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has
led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to
claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables"
is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is
therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary
Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts
to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave
most offspring. "
however, to be absolutely certain I have ordered his "Objective
Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)"
via my local library and so will know for certain in a few weeks.
so the entire tautology argument hinges on the words "survival of the
fittest"
I also found this argument from his recantation interesting because he
uses one of the arguments you have disallowed. (though I think I agree
with you that SxS should be included within NS):
"If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutable,
but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose; as
Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the
peacock, and behavioral programs like the peacock's display of his tail,
which cannot be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural
selection. Of course one can get round this refutation by some verbal
maneuver: one can get round any refutation of any theory. But then one
gets near to rendering the theory tautological."
>
>>>> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
>>>> formulated against description NS.
>>>
>>> I never attempted such a thing, as it's a sterile question. My claim is
>>> that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
>>> whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
>>
>> What does "it" in "it can be formulated" refer to? Tautologies are all
>> about expressive forms (words), not about underlying concepts.
.
>"It" refers to the concept of natural selection. Tautologies may be all
>about words, though I don't see why that should be true, but
>creationists have claimed that natural selection itself is tautological.
>(As, I have already mentioned, did Karl Popper.)
NS itself cannot be a tautology for the same reason gravity cannot be.
The *category* that tautologies refer to is expressive forms (words),
not processes.
And as described above Popper appears to have assumed that the
expression SoF was the definition of NS.
>>>>>>> Do you really think they care about terminology?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
>>>>>> work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
>>>>>> to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
>>>>>> category errors it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
>>>>>> tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, it's intended to be an attack not just on the phrase "SoF"
>>>>> but on the meaningfulness of the concept of natural selection.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, and George Bush *intended* that the crusade in Iraq would decrease
>>>> Muslim militancy.
>>
>> .
>>
>>> I don't see your point here. In order to deal with a creationist attack,
>>> it's useful to understand what the attack is aimed at.
>>
>> I am not clear what your point is about: In your last message you
>> referred to "it's intended". Here you are referring to "what the attack
>> is aimed at". Is your point about the intent of the people using the
>> tautology argument or the argument itself?
.
>Intent. But the argument can be transformed to fit a great many choices
>of terminology. I really don't think it's just all about the words. If
>it were, all you need to do is say that selection can be described in
>different words; problem solved. All my comments on this subject, from
>the beginning, have been aimed at concepts, not wording.
I understand that your arguments are aimed at the underlying reality and
showing that it is testable. That is certainly the most important
point. However the section I am working on here is concerned with the
nature of tautologies themselves - and that examination shows that the
argument can appear to work *only* when it is directed against the
words: "Survival of the Fittest".
>>> If your demand
>>> is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
>>> still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point.
>>
>> I don't think you can make the argument without referring to fitness (or
>> a synonym) and the reason you cannot is because the tautology argument
>> is about wording, not substance. More specifics below.
>
>I don't know if I could, but I won't try, since it's pointless.
>>> My point,
>>> on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
>>> of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
>>> and, through that, on evolution.
>>
>> I believe you are contradicting your own past position. Remember, that
>> it was you who pointed out to me that when creationists attack NS/SoF
>> they are attacking the only part of evolution they agree with.
>
>I'm not seeing the contradiction. At least not the one on my part;
>creationists are self-contradictory all the time.
of NS, but it is not, it is directed against a confused idea or straw
man.
>> That argument is still in the FAQ:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>> The section titled: "Most creationists agree that the fittest survive"
>>
>> How can creationists be attacking [sensibly] a concept they agree with?
>
>That really isn't my problem, but theirs.
directed against a realistic concept.
>> Since they are not attacking the [substantive] concept, I suggest they
>> are attacking the words alone. Indeed a tautology is a reference to an
>> expressive form (logic, math, language etc). It says that a *statement*
>> (group of words) is redundant or true regardless of the meaning of its
>> elements. Content is irrelevant.
>
>This may be true about tautologies. But creationists are not just
>claiming you shouldn't use the phrase "survival of the fittest", are
>they? I might point out that Karl Popper at one point claimed that
>natural selection was tautological, and he wasn't even a creationist.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html
and according to this article (a short interesting read):
http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution
"Popper takes "survival of the fittest" as the definition of natural
selection"
and this paragraph from his recantation strongly suggests that that is
exactly what he did:
"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has
led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to
claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables"
is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is
therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary
Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts
to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave
most offspring. "
however, to be absolutely certain I have ordered his "Objective
Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)"
via my local library and so will know for certain in a few weeks.
so the entire tautology argument hinges on the words "survival of the
fittest"
I also found this argument from his recantation interesting because he
uses one of the arguments you have disallowed. (though I think I agree
with you that SxS should be included within NS):
"If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutable,
but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose; as
Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the
peacock, and behavioral programs like the peacock's display of his tail,
which cannot be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural
selection. Of course one can get round this refutation by some verbal
maneuver: one can get round any refutation of any theory. But then one
gets near to rendering the theory tautological."
>
>>>> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
>>>> formulated against description NS.
>>>
>>> I never attempted such a thing, as it's a sterile question. My claim is
>>> that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
>>> whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
>>
>> What does "it" in "it can be formulated" refer to? Tautologies are all
>> about expressive forms (words), not about underlying concepts.
.
>"It" refers to the concept of natural selection. Tautologies may be all
>about words, though I don't see why that should be true, but
>creationists have claimed that natural selection itself is tautological.
>(As, I have already mentioned, did Karl Popper.)
The *category* that tautologies refer to is expressive forms (words),
not processes.
And as described above Popper appears to have assumed that the
expression SoF was the definition of NS.
>>>>>>> Do you really think they care about terminology?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My impression is that most creationists have not (and possible can not)
>>>>>> work out the difference between words and the reality they are intended
>>>>>> to refer to. As I'm sure you've noted, most of them make so many
>>>>>> category errors it's hard to know where to start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure they imagine they are making a substantive point, but the
>>>>>> tautology argument itself is entirely semantic.
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, it's intended to be an attack not just on the phrase "SoF"
>>>>> but on the meaningfulness of the concept of natural selection.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, and George Bush *intended* that the crusade in Iraq would decrease
>>>> Muslim militancy.
>>
>> .
>>
>>> I don't see your point here. In order to deal with a creationist attack,
>>> it's useful to understand what the attack is aimed at.
>>
>> I am not clear what your point is about: In your last message you
>> referred to "it's intended". Here you are referring to "what the attack
>> is aimed at". Is your point about the intent of the people using the
>> tautology argument or the argument itself?
>Intent. But the argument can be transformed to fit a great many choices
>of terminology. I really don't think it's just all about the words. If
>it were, all you need to do is say that selection can be described in
>different words; problem solved. All my comments on this subject, from
>the beginning, have been aimed at concepts, not wording.
showing that it is testable. That is certainly the most important
point. However the section I am working on here is concerned with the
nature of tautologies themselves - and that examination shows that the
argument can appear to work *only* when it is directed against the
words: "Survival of the Fittest".
John Harshman
Jan 19, 2013, 9:53:30 AM1/19/13
to
is a human construct overlying the facts. That doesn't mean that fitness
isn't essential to the human construct we call natural selection, which
approximates a real process in nature. And "fitness" approximates a real
property of organisms.
>>>> If your demand
>>>> is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
>>>> still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point.
>>>
>>> I don't think you can make the argument without referring to fitness (or
>>> a synonym) and the reason you cannot is because the tautology argument
>>> is about wording, not substance. More specifics below.
>>
>> I don't know if I could, but I won't try, since it's pointless.
>
> It would establish that you have a case.
increase in frequency in the population, and we know which genotypes
those are because they increase in frequency in the population"?
>>>> My point,
>>>> on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
>>>> of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
>>>> and, through that, on evolution.
>>>
>>> I believe you are contradicting your own past position. Remember, that
>>> it was you who pointed out to me that when creationists attack NS/SoF
>>> they are attacking the only part of evolution they agree with.
>>
>> I'm not seeing the contradiction. At least not the one on my part;
>> creationists are self-contradictory all the time.
>
> You said that the creationist argument is directed against the concept
> of NS, but it is not, it is directed against a confused idea or straw
> man.
specific phrase SoF. It largely relies on the notion that fitness is not
a real property.
>>> That argument is still in the FAQ:
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>>> The section titled: "Most creationists agree that the fittest survive"
>>>
>>> How can creationists be attacking [sensibly] a concept they agree with?
>>
>> That really isn't my problem, but theirs.
>
> Well it is also your problem if you are claiming that their attack is
> directed against a realistic concept.
a tactic. Can we agree that saying X would be illogical and inconsistent
is not a good argument that creationists don't say X?
characterize the supposed topology without using the term SoF, even if
he took that as the definition.
> however, to be absolutely certain I have ordered his "Objective
> Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)"
> via my local library and so will know for certain in a few weeks.
>
> so the entire tautology argument hinges on the words "survival of the
> fittest"
saying that some people claim that natural selection is a tautology, not
just SoF.
> I also found this argument from his recantation interesting because he
> uses one of the arguments you have disallowed. (though I think I agree
> with you that SxS should be included within NS):
>
> "If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutable,
> but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose; as
> Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the
> peacock, and behavioral programs like the peacock's display of his tail,
> which cannot be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural
> selection. Of course one can get round this refutation by some verbal
> maneuver: one can get round any refutation of any theory. But then one
> gets near to rendering the theory tautological."
is poor. A peacock's tail is indeed maintained by natural (sexual)
selection. But, stripped of that example, this is just the argument from
neutral fixation, which I believe I was the one to advance.
>>>>> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
>>>>> formulated against description NS.
>>>>
>>>> I never attempted such a thing, as it's a sterile question. My claim is
>>>> that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
>>>> whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
>>>
>>> What does "it" in "it can be formulated" refer to? Tautologies are all
>>> about expressive forms (words), not about underlying concepts.
>
>> "It" refers to the concept of natural selection. Tautologies may be all
>> about words, though I don't see why that should be true, but
>> creationists have claimed that natural selection itself is tautological.
>> (As, I have already mentioned, did Karl Popper.)
>
> NS itself cannot be a tautology for the same reason gravity cannot be.
> The *category* that tautologies refer to is expressive forms (words),
> not processes.
Take it up with Popper, then.
>> about words, though I don't see why that should be true, but
>> creationists have claimed that natural selection itself is tautological.
>> (As, I have already mentioned, did Karl Popper.)
>
> NS itself cannot be a tautology for the same reason gravity cannot be.
> The *category* that tautologies refer to is expressive forms (words),
> not processes.
> And as described above Popper appears to have assumed that the
> expression SoF was the definition of NS.
just particular words.
tautology strawman and that there is no critical dependence on a single
phrase. "Reproductive success of the most reproductively successful",
and so on.
Friar Broccoli
Jan 24, 2013, 10:40:51 AM1/24/13
to
Note: I need to email Deadrat and check that he is not too hostile to
this version. If I get that far, I will need approval on other (mostly
minor) modifications to the main FAQ as well as many new footnotes and
references (notably that Popper used the sexual selection argument the
section "Sometimes survival isn't determined by fitness") and elsewhere
Spencer, Sober, Maynard Smith, Brady. Also as deadrat suggested I want
to change the moth references to light and dark Rock pocket mouse
references.
The following intended to be inserted in:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
immediately before:
"The tautology argument is an attack against wording, not substance."
Substantive changes below are indented 2 spaces.
____________________________________________________________
What is a tautology?
There is no universally agreed single definition of tautology,
nor is it obvious how the various meanings of tautology relate
to each other. Etymologically the word comes from the Greek
tauto, "the same" and logos, "word or idea". The first known
use, in the sixteenth century, referred to vain or empty
repetition of meaning. Subsequently the word was imported into
logic where it is has been given a far more restrictive meaning:
while survival [^xx] , in this context, means continuing
reproductive success.
[xx footnote to *first* use of survival in FAQ]: "survival" is
a poor choice of word in "Survival of the Fittest" because it
is unclear if it refers to survival of individuals or
characteristics/genes. Since individuals never survive that
use is in fact incoherent.
Succinctly: The likelihood of survival is not the same as actual
survival defined as continuing reproductive success. And fit
characteristics are causally linked to survival.
4) When creationists actually specify what type of tautology
they are talking about, it is often redundancy. Unfortunately
since there are many types of redundancy (synonym/identity,
adjective/property) that designation by itself isn't obviously
helpful. In practice what this argument usually reduces to the
definitional claim (like 3 above) summarized in the question:
"How do you define fitness except as survival?"
It can seem difficult to provide a creationist with a clear and
convincing reply to this question.
The causes of this apparent difficulty are the effects of
chance which can promote unfit or eliminate otherwise fit
characteristics
and the statistical nature of the reply. Statistical estimates
Dissolving of the most Soluble as analog to SoF
Another way to conceptualize the tautology argument is to find
clear statements that have the properties that creationists
analogy may be "Dissolving of the most Soluble". How do you
know what is most soluble? It's what dissolves most easily.
this version. If I get that far, I will need approval on other (mostly
minor) modifications to the main FAQ as well as many new footnotes and
references (notably that Popper used the sexual selection argument the
section "Sometimes survival isn't determined by fitness") and elsewhere
Spencer, Sober, Maynard Smith, Brady. Also as deadrat suggested I want
to change the moth references to light and dark Rock pocket mouse
references.
The following intended to be inserted in:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
immediately before:
"The tautology argument is an attack against wording, not substance."
Substantive changes below are indented 2 spaces.
____________________________________________________________
What is a tautology?
There is no universally agreed single definition of tautology,
nor is it obvious how the various meanings of tautology relate
to each other. Etymologically the word comes from the Greek
tauto, "the same" and logos, "word or idea". The first known
use, in the sixteenth century, referred to vain or empty
repetition of meaning. Subsequently the word was imported into
reproductive success.
[xx footnote to *first* use of survival in FAQ]: "survival" is
a poor choice of word in "Survival of the Fittest" because it
is unclear if it refers to survival of individuals or
characteristics/genes. Since individuals never survive that
use is in fact incoherent.
Succinctly: The likelihood of survival is not the same as actual
survival defined as continuing reproductive success. And fit
4) When creationists actually specify what type of tautology
they are talking about, it is often redundancy. Unfortunately
since there are many types of redundancy (synonym/identity,
adjective/property) that designation by itself isn't obviously
helpful. In practice what this argument usually reduces to the
definitional claim (like 3 above) summarized in the question:
"How do you define fitness except as survival?"
It can seem difficult to provide a creationist with a clear and
convincing reply to this question.
chance which can promote unfit or eliminate otherwise fit
characteristics
and the statistical nature of the reply. Statistical estimates
of fitness will always include uncertainty as is the case in
other areas like weather reporting. However a creationist will
typically want to insist on a prediction that is as certain as a
planet's orbit.
Apart from chance the primary reason why fitness of
other areas like weather reporting. However a creationist will
typically want to insist on a prediction that is as certain as a
planet's orbit.
characteristics is difficult to predict is because fitness is
not a distinct property, it is composed of a long list of often
competing attributes related to:
- movement
- defence/capture
- camouflage
- detection/perception
- digestion
- temperature and chemical balance
- immunity
- reproduction
Thus, for example, one would be inclined to predict that an
animal which is slow moving and good to eat, will be fit only if
it blends in with its environment, but we know that there are a
whole class of butterflies that are brightly coloured in a way
that mimics poisonous species.
Thus fitness like intelligence is a single designation for a
class of possible behaviours, which will sometimes work in
surprising ways. The consequences of such a wide array of
competing characteristics can be predicted only
probabilistically.
[The following will be added to the last section of the FAQ]
not a distinct property, it is composed of a long list of often
competing attributes related to:
- movement
- defence/capture
- camouflage
- detection/perception
- digestion
- temperature and chemical balance
- immunity
- reproduction
Thus, for example, one would be inclined to predict that an
animal which is slow moving and good to eat, will be fit only if
it blends in with its environment, but we know that there are a
whole class of butterflies that are brightly coloured in a way
that mimics poisonous species.
Thus fitness like intelligence is a single designation for a
class of possible behaviours, which will sometimes work in
surprising ways. The consequences of such a wide array of
competing characteristics can be predicted only
probabilistically.
Dissolving of the most Soluble as analog to SoF
Another way to conceptualize the tautology argument is to find
would like to ascribe to SoF.
Since SoF means 'Survival of the most Fit' a good if inelegant
analogy may be "Dissolving of the most Soluble". How do you
know what is most soluble? It's what dissolves most easily.
Yet this statement has empirical content, because the same
substances reliably dissolve most easily under the same
conditions. There actually is a real property of solubility,
conditions. There actually is a real property of solubility,
which varies among substances. The same with "survival of the
fittest": there actually is a real property of fitness, which
has been shown to vary among genotypes in populations.
fittest": there actually is a real property of fitness, which
has been shown to vary among genotypes in populations.
Friar Broccoli
Feb 10, 2013, 11:14:08 AM2/10/13
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:53:30 -0800, John Harshman
Does that mean anything? "Fitness" summaries a group of specific and
often competing characteristics. Fitness is a useful abstraction, but
only an abstraction.
>>>>> If your demand
>>>>> is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
>>>>> still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you can make the argument without referring to fitness (or
>>>> a synonym) and the reason you cannot is because the tautology argument
>>>> is about wording, not substance. More specifics below.
>>>
>>> I don't know if I could, but I won't try, since it's pointless.
>>
>> It would establish that you have a case.
.
>It's a silly way to do so. But how about "some genotypes tend to
>increase in frequency in the population, and we know which genotypes
>those are because they increase in frequency in the population"?
I now see that you were correct - it was pointless, although it did help
me find:
"Use of the best" How do we know which is the best - it is the one that
is most used.
So generalized descriptors (like "fitness" and "best") and vague
operants (like "use" and "survive") incorporate wider meaning and thus
provide the greatest space for redundancies upon which apparent
tautologies can be built.
Your example is just repetition of the same form as: Some objects fall
and we know which ones they are because they fall. So all your example
shows is that some aspect of any theory can be twisted into a redundant
tautology.
>>>>> My point,
>>>>> on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
>>>>> of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
>>>>> and, through that, on evolution.
>>>>
>>>> I believe you are contradicting your own past position. Remember, that
>>>> it was you who pointed out to me that when creationists attack NS/SoF
>>>> they are attacking the only part of evolution they agree with.
>>>
>>> I'm not seeing the contradiction. At least not the one on my part;
>>> creationists are self-contradictory all the time.
>>
>> You said that the creationist argument is directed against the concept
>> of NS, but it is not, it is directed against a confused idea or straw
>> man.
.
>Agreed. But that strawman is not exclusive to or dependent on the
>specific phrase SoF. It largely relies on the notion that fitness is not
>a real property.
Fitness is a composite or generalized property that is included within
SoF.
>>>> That argument is still in the FAQ:
>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>>>> The section titled: "Most creationists agree that the fittest survive"
>>>>
>>>> How can creationists be attacking [sensibly] a concept they agree with?
>>>
>>> That really isn't my problem, but theirs.
.
>> Well it is also your problem if you are claiming that their attack is
>> directed against a realistic concept.
>
>They are attacking a real concept by invoking a strawman concept. That's
>a tactic. Can we agree that saying X would be illogical and inconsistent
>is not a good argument that creationists don't say X?
Why is this relevant here? You're claiming their attack is directed
against a real concept.
We know it's not real because they say X and then they say not-X.
>>>> Since they are not attacking the [substantive] concept, I suggest they
>>>> are attacking the words alone. Indeed a tautology is a reference to an
>>>> expressive form (logic, math, language etc). It says that a *statement*
>>>> (group of words) is redundant or true regardless of the meaning of its
>>>> elements. Content is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> This may be true about tautologies. But creationists are not just
>>> claiming you shouldn't use the phrase "survival of the fittest", are
>>> they? I might point out that Karl Popper at one point claimed that
>>> natural selection was tautological, and he wasn't even a creationist.
>>
>> Actually he claimed it was "almost a tautology" see (his recantation):
>> http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html
>>
>> and according to this article (a short interesting read):
>> http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution
>>
>> "Popper takes "survival of the fittest" as the definition of natural
>> selection"
>>
>> and this paragraph from his recantation strongly suggests that that is
>> exactly what he did:
>>
.
>> "The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has
>> led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to
>> claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables"
>> is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is
>> therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary
>> Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts
>> to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave
>> most offspring. "
>
>I would say this supports my claim.
I assume your claim here is that Popper said it. So did Dembinski and
Coulter.
>And note that Popper was able to
>characterize the supposed topology without using the term SoF, even if
>he took that as the definition.
What does "topology" mean here? It doesn't appear to have anything to
do with a clear or logically supported argument.
>> however, to be absolutely certain I have ordered his "Objective
>> Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)"
>> via my local library and so will know for certain in a few weeks.
>>
>> so the entire tautology argument hinges on the words "survival of the
>> fittest"
>
>Even your Popper quote doesn't contain those words?
Since the quote is empty it hardly matters.
>Note that he's
>saying that some people claim that natural selection is a tautology, not
>just SoF.
How does this support your claim that the tautology argument refers to a
real concept?
>> I also found this argument from his recantation interesting because he
>> uses one of the arguments you have disallowed. (though I think I agree
>> with you that SxS should be included within NS):
>>
>> "If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutable,
>> but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose; as
>> Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the
>> peacock, and behavioral programs like the peacock's display of his tail,
>> which cannot be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural
>> selection. Of course one can get round this refutation by some verbal
>> maneuver: one can get round any refutation of any theory. But then one
>> gets near to rendering the theory tautological."
>
>No, I think that argument is fine. It's just that the example he chooses
>is poor. A peacock's tail is indeed maintained by natural (sexual)
>selection. But, stripped of that example, this is just the argument from
>neutral fixation, which I believe I was the one to advance.
Point of vanity: It was my idea which you rewrote to make coherent. Also
Popper in unquoted prefixes and suffixes makes reference to "genetic
drift".
>>>>>> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
>>>>>> formulated against description NS.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never attempted such a thing, as it's a sterile question. My claim is
>>>>> that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
>>>>> whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
>>>>
>>>> What does "it" in "it can be formulated" refer to? Tautologies are all
>>>> about expressive forms (words), not about underlying concepts.
>>
>>> "It" refers to the concept of natural selection. Tautologies may be all
>>> about words, though I don't see why that should be true, but
>>> creationists have claimed that natural selection itself is tautological.
>>> (As, I have already mentioned, did Karl Popper.)
>>
>> NS itself cannot be a tautology for the same reason gravity cannot be.
>> The *category* that tautologies refer to is expressive forms (words),
>> not processes.
>
>Take it up with Popper, then.
Ees been nailed to is perch !!
>> And as described above Popper appears to have assumed that the
>> expression SoF was the definition of NS.
>
>Nevertheless, he was talking about the concept of natural selection, not
>just particular words.
Then why did he think that a restatement of NS would fix the tautology
problem?
OK, if someone is so inclined they can make an idiotic argument that the
law of gravity is a tautology because it refers to "falling of the
falling" or "attraction of the attractive" etc. but that doesn't mean
there is a realistic concept (as opposed to a silly distortion) being
attacked, which I believe is your point.
NS is harder to attack than SoF because "selection of the selected"
fails when it is noted that Artificial Selection is not a tautology and
Natural refers to competitors, predators, females etc.
often competing characteristics. Fitness is a useful abstraction, but
only an abstraction.
>>>>> If your demand
>>>>> is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
>>>>> still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you can make the argument without referring to fitness (or
>>>> a synonym) and the reason you cannot is because the tautology argument
>>>> is about wording, not substance. More specifics below.
>>>
>>> I don't know if I could, but I won't try, since it's pointless.
>>
>> It would establish that you have a case.
.
>It's a silly way to do so. But how about "some genotypes tend to
>increase in frequency in the population, and we know which genotypes
>those are because they increase in frequency in the population"?
me find:
"Use of the best" How do we know which is the best - it is the one that
is most used.
So generalized descriptors (like "fitness" and "best") and vague
operants (like "use" and "survive") incorporate wider meaning and thus
provide the greatest space for redundancies upon which apparent
tautologies can be built.
Your example is just repetition of the same form as: Some objects fall
and we know which ones they are because they fall. So all your example
shows is that some aspect of any theory can be twisted into a redundant
tautology.
>>>>> My point,
>>>>> on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
>>>>> of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
>>>>> and, through that, on evolution.
>>>>
>>>> I believe you are contradicting your own past position. Remember, that
>>>> it was you who pointed out to me that when creationists attack NS/SoF
>>>> they are attacking the only part of evolution they agree with.
>>>
>>> I'm not seeing the contradiction. At least not the one on my part;
>>> creationists are self-contradictory all the time.
>>
>> You said that the creationist argument is directed against the concept
>> of NS, but it is not, it is directed against a confused idea or straw
>> man.
.
>Agreed. But that strawman is not exclusive to or dependent on the
>specific phrase SoF. It largely relies on the notion that fitness is not
>a real property.
SoF.
>>>> That argument is still in the FAQ:
>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>>>> The section titled: "Most creationists agree that the fittest survive"
>>>>
>>>> How can creationists be attacking [sensibly] a concept they agree with?
>>>
>>> That really isn't my problem, but theirs.
.
>> Well it is also your problem if you are claiming that their attack is
>> directed against a realistic concept.
>
>They are attacking a real concept by invoking a strawman concept. That's
>a tactic. Can we agree that saying X would be illogical and inconsistent
>is not a good argument that creationists don't say X?
against a real concept.
We know it's not real because they say X and then they say not-X.
>>>> Since they are not attacking the [substantive] concept, I suggest they
>>>> are attacking the words alone. Indeed a tautology is a reference to an
>>>> expressive form (logic, math, language etc). It says that a *statement*
>>>> (group of words) is redundant or true regardless of the meaning of its
>>>> elements. Content is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> This may be true about tautologies. But creationists are not just
>>> claiming you shouldn't use the phrase "survival of the fittest", are
>>> they? I might point out that Karl Popper at one point claimed that
>>> natural selection was tautological, and he wasn't even a creationist.
>>
>> Actually he claimed it was "almost a tautology" see (his recantation):
>> http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html
>>
>> and according to this article (a short interesting read):
>> http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution
>>
>> "Popper takes "survival of the fittest" as the definition of natural
>> selection"
>>
>> and this paragraph from his recantation strongly suggests that that is
>> exactly what he did:
>>
>> "The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has
>> led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to
>> claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables"
>> is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is
>> therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary
>> Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts
>> to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave
>> most offspring. "
>
>I would say this supports my claim.
Coulter.
>And note that Popper was able to
>characterize the supposed topology without using the term SoF, even if
>he took that as the definition.
do with a clear or logically supported argument.
>> however, to be absolutely certain I have ordered his "Objective
>> Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)"
>> via my local library and so will know for certain in a few weeks.
>>
>> so the entire tautology argument hinges on the words "survival of the
>> fittest"
>
>Even your Popper quote doesn't contain those words?
>Note that he's
>saying that some people claim that natural selection is a tautology, not
>just SoF.
real concept?
>> I also found this argument from his recantation interesting because he
>> uses one of the arguments you have disallowed. (though I think I agree
>> with you that SxS should be included within NS):
>>
>> "If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutable,
>> but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose; as
>> Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the
>> peacock, and behavioral programs like the peacock's display of his tail,
>> which cannot be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural
>> selection. Of course one can get round this refutation by some verbal
>> maneuver: one can get round any refutation of any theory. But then one
>> gets near to rendering the theory tautological."
>
>No, I think that argument is fine. It's just that the example he chooses
>is poor. A peacock's tail is indeed maintained by natural (sexual)
>selection. But, stripped of that example, this is just the argument from
>neutral fixation, which I believe I was the one to advance.
Popper in unquoted prefixes and suffixes makes reference to "genetic
drift".
>>>>>> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
>>>>>> formulated against description NS.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never attempted such a thing, as it's a sterile question. My claim is
>>>>> that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
>>>>> whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
>>>>
>>>> What does "it" in "it can be formulated" refer to? Tautologies are all
>>>> about expressive forms (words), not about underlying concepts.
>>
>>> "It" refers to the concept of natural selection. Tautologies may be all
>>> about words, though I don't see why that should be true, but
>>> creationists have claimed that natural selection itself is tautological.
>>> (As, I have already mentioned, did Karl Popper.)
>>
>> NS itself cannot be a tautology for the same reason gravity cannot be.
>> The *category* that tautologies refer to is expressive forms (words),
>> not processes.
>
>Take it up with Popper, then.
>> And as described above Popper appears to have assumed that the
>> expression SoF was the definition of NS.
>
>Nevertheless, he was talking about the concept of natural selection, not
>just particular words.
problem?
law of gravity is a tautology because it refers to "falling of the
falling" or "attraction of the attractive" etc. but that doesn't mean
there is a realistic concept (as opposed to a silly distortion) being
attacked, which I believe is your point.
NS is harder to attack than SoF because "selection of the selected"
fails when it is noted that Artificial Selection is not a tautology and
Natural refers to competitors, predators, females etc.
John Harshman
Feb 12, 2013, 7:25:35 PM2/12/13
to
everything we know is an abstraction. Fitness is no different. So?
>>>>>> If your demand
>>>>>> is that I play solely with the words "natural" and "selection", I might
>>>>>> still be able to make an argument, but I don't see the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you can make the argument without referring to fitness (or
>>>>> a synonym) and the reason you cannot is because the tautology argument
>>>>> is about wording, not substance. More specifics below.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if I could, but I won't try, since it's pointless.
>>>
>>> It would establish that you have a case.
>
> .
>
>> It's a silly way to do so. But how about "some genotypes tend to
>> increase in frequency in the population, and we know which genotypes
>> those are because they increase in frequency in the population"?
>
> I now see that you were correct - it was pointless, although it did help
> me find:
>
> "Use of the best" How do we know which is the best - it is the one that
> is most used.
>
> So generalized descriptors (like "fitness" and "best") and vague
> operants (like "use" and "survive") incorporate wider meaning and thus
> provide the greatest space for redundancies upon which apparent
> tautologies can be built.
>
> Your example is just repetition of the same form as: Some objects fall
> and we know which ones they are because they fall. So all your example
> shows is that some aspect of any theory can be twisted into a redundant
> tautology.
But if it did, wouldn't "survival of the fittest" be a case of just that
sort?
>>>>>> My point,
>>>>>> on the other hand, is that this has never been about the words "survival
>>>>>> of the fittest"; it's been an attack on the concept of natural selection
>>>>>> and, through that, on evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe you are contradicting your own past position. Remember, that
>>>>> it was you who pointed out to me that when creationists attack NS/SoF
>>>>> they are attacking the only part of evolution they agree with.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not seeing the contradiction. At least not the one on my part;
>>>> creationists are self-contradictory all the time.
>>>
>>> You said that the creationist argument is directed against the concept
>>> of NS, but it is not, it is directed against a confused idea or straw
>>> man.
>
> .
>
>> Agreed. But that strawman is not exclusive to or dependent on the
>> specific phrase SoF. It largely relies on the notion that fitness is not
>> a real property.
>
> Fitness is a composite or generalized property that is included within
> SoF.
And the concept of fitness, or something like it, is necessary to the
concept of SoF. And to the concept of natural selection. It isn't clear
where this is going.
>>>>> That argument is still in the FAQ:
>>>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>>>>> The section titled: "Most creationists agree that the fittest survive"
>>>>>
>>>>> How can creationists be attacking [sensibly] a concept they agree with?
>>>>
>>>> That really isn't my problem, but theirs.
>
> .
>
>>> Well it is also your problem if you are claiming that their attack is
>>> directed against a realistic concept.
>>
>> They are attacking a real concept by invoking a strawman concept. That's
>> a tactic. Can we agree that saying X would be illogical and inconsistent
>> is not a good argument that creationists don't say X?
>
> Why is this relevant here? You're claiming their attack is directed
> against a real concept.
>
> We know it's not real because they say X and then they say not-X.
purpose of the attack is to cast doubt on evlution in general. Even
though creationists commonly accept some sort of microevolution, they
still tend to reject microevolutionary processes. I would consider that
self-inconsistent, but they do it anyway. And even if they accept
microevolutionary processes like selection, they tend to grasp at any
argument that happens to be going their way, even contradictory ones.
Self-contradiction just isn't a concern to creationists.
You must realize that their point isn't "you have stated this principle
badly", which you seem to think it is. Their point is "evolution is wrong".
interpret.
>> And note that Popper was able to
>> characterize the supposed topology without using the term SoF, even if
>> he took that as the definition.
>
> What does "topology" mean here? It doesn't appear to have anything to
> do with a clear or logically supported argument.
"tautology".
>>> however, to be absolutely certain I have ordered his "Objective
>>> Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)"
>>> via my local library and so will know for certain in a few weeks.
>>>
>>> so the entire tautology argument hinges on the words "survival of the
>>> fittest"
>>
>> Even your Popper quote doesn't contain those words?
>
> Since the quote is empty it hardly matters.
>> Note that he's
>> saying that some people claim that natural selection is a tautology, not
>> just SoF.
>
> How does this support your claim that the tautology argument refers to a
> real concept?
the tautology argument refers to natural selection, whatever words you
may use to describe it. Natural selection is a real concept, though
creationists may not understand that concept. Still, they are attacking
the concept, not the wording, and behind that they are attacking evolution.
>>> I also found this argument from his recantation interesting because he
>>> uses one of the arguments you have disallowed. (though I think I agree
>>> with you that SxS should be included within NS):
>>>
>>> "If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only refutable,
>>> but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose; as
>>> Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the
>>> peacock, and behavioral programs like the peacock's display of his tail,
>>> which cannot be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural
>>> selection. Of course one can get round this refutation by some verbal
>>> maneuver: one can get round any refutation of any theory. But then one
>>> gets near to rendering the theory tautological."
>>
>> No, I think that argument is fine. It's just that the example he chooses
>> is poor. A peacock's tail is indeed maintained by natural (sexual)
>> selection. But, stripped of that example, this is just the argument from
>> neutral fixation, which I believe I was the one to advance.
>
> Point of vanity: It was my idea which you rewrote to make coherent. Also
> Popper in unquoted prefixes and suffixes makes reference to "genetic
> drift".
makes it a bad example. I'm not sure how the existence of drift refutes
natural selection. I suppose it would refute a hypothesis that natural
selection is the cause of all fixations everywhere. But that seems quite
another thing.
>>>>>>> So I believe you have failed to show that the tautology argument can be
>>>>>>> formulated against description NS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never attempted such a thing, as it's a sterile question. My claim is
>>>>>> that it can be formulated against the *concept* of natural selection,
>>>>>> whatever buzz-phrase you prefer to describe it by.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does "it" in "it can be formulated" refer to? Tautologies are all
>>>>> about expressive forms (words), not about underlying concepts.
>>>
>>>> "It" refers to the concept of natural selection. Tautologies may be all
>>>> about words, though I don't see why that should be true, but
>>>> creationists have claimed that natural selection itself is tautological.
>>>> (As, I have already mentioned, did Karl Popper.)
>>>
>>> NS itself cannot be a tautology for the same reason gravity cannot be.
>>> The *category* that tautologies refer to is expressive forms (words),
>>> not processes.
>>
>> Take it up with Popper, then.
>
> Ees been nailed to is perch !!
>>> And as described above Popper appears to have assumed that the
>>> expression SoF was the definition of NS.
>>
>> Nevertheless, he was talking about the concept of natural selection, not
>> just particular words.
>
> Then why did he think that a restatement of NS would fix the tautology
> problem?
did he change the concept when he changed the words? It seems he was.
sure), how is it any less effective when applied to survival of the fittest?
Ray Martinez
Feb 12, 2013, 10:19:33 PM2/12/13
to
On Jan 12, 12:31�pm, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > most soluble? Because it mixes most easily. Yet this statement has
Ray
> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Wallace_Letter_to_Darwin_on_natural_s...
>
> Wallace: "....My dear Darwin, I have been so repeatedly struck by the
> On Jan 12, 6:31 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Since SoF means "Survival of the most Fit" the analogy may be better
> > expressed as "Mixing of the Most soluble" (MoMs) How do you know what's
>
> > Since SoF means "Survival of the most Fit" the analogy may be better
> > most soluble? Because it mixes most easily. Yet this statement has
> > empirical content, because the same substances reliably mix most easily
> > under the same conditions. There actually is a real property of
> > solubility, which varies among substances. The same with "survival of
> > the fittest": there actually is a real property of fitness, which has
> > been shown to vary among genotypes in populations.
>
> Depends who you are referring to. �Natural Selection was used as the
> metaphor for SoF by Darwin on Wallace insistence.
> Anybody can use SoF in any context, the actual term has no meaning, it
> is the idea that it represented by an author. Since you are not
> referring
> to Darwin, Spencer but are using their terminology we have same
> confusion as if Hawkins would use phlogiston theory when he actually
> means quantum theory.
>
> In other words we have a form mental illness and delusion �on display.
> It is like a person insisting that ''You have a green light" always
> means you can drive your car. The only meaning we are dealing with was
> the actual meaning the authors intended in 1860.
Crucial point; and so true.
> > under the same conditions. There actually is a real property of
> > solubility, which varies among substances. The same with "survival of
> > the fittest": there actually is a real property of fitness, which has
> > been shown to vary among genotypes in populations.
>
> Depends who you are referring to. �Natural Selection was used as the
> metaphor for SoF by Darwin on Wallace insistence.
> Anybody can use SoF in any context, the actual term has no meaning, it
> is the idea that it represented by an author. Since you are not
> referring
> to Darwin, Spencer but are using their terminology we have same
> confusion as if Hawkins would use phlogiston theory when he actually
> means quantum theory.
>
> In other words we have a form mental illness and delusion �on display.
> It is like a person insisting that ''You have a green light" always
> means you can drive your car. The only meaning we are dealing with was
> the actual meaning the authors intended in 1860.
Ray
> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Wallace_Letter_to_Darwin_on_natural_s...
>
> Wallace: "....My dear Darwin, I have been so repeatedly struck by the
Ray Martinez
Feb 12, 2013, 10:49:52 PM2/12/13
to
On Feb 12, 4:25�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/10/13 8:14 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:53:30 -0800, John Harshman
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> On 2/10/13 8:14 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:53:30 -0800, John Harshman
>
> >> On 1/18/13 5:56 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:27:35 -0800, John Harshman
> >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> � wrote:
>
> >>>> On 1/17/13 4:38 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:55:49 -0800, John Harshman
> >>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:
> >> On 1/18/13 5:56 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:27:35 -0800, John Harshman
> >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> � wrote:
>
> >>>> On 1/17/13 4:38 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:55:49 -0800, John Harshman
>
> >>>>>> On 1/17/13 9:21 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:24:37 -0800, John Harshman
> >>>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> � � wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 1/13/13 6:23 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:46:35 -0800, John Harshman
> >>>>>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> � � �wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/17/13 9:21 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:24:37 -0800, John Harshman
> >>>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> � � wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 1/13/13 6:23 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:46:35 -0800, John Harshman
mutability, he didn't mean it?
> You must realize that their point isn't "you have stated this principle
> badly", which you seem to think it is. Their point is "evolution is wrong".
of macroevolution within (not between) created kinds.
> >>>>> Since they are not attacking the [substantive] concept, I suggest they
> >>>>> are attacking the words alone. �Indeed a tautology is a reference to an
> >>>>> expressive form (logic, math, language etc). �It says that a *statement*
> >>>>> (group of words) is redundant or true regardless of the meaning of its
> >>>>> elements. � Content is irrelevant.
>
> >>>> This may be true about tautologies. But creationists are not just
> >>>> claiming you shouldn't use the phrase "survival of the fittest", are
> >>>> they? I might point out that Karl Popper at one point claimed that
> >>>> natural selection was tautological, and he wasn't even a creationist.
>
> >>> Actually he claimed it was "almost a tautology" see (his recantation):
mutable?
I think your criticism is misconceived, in need of correction: the
YECs do accept micro and restricted macro.
Ray
[....]
John Harshman
Feb 13, 2013, 9:50:38 AM2/13/13
to
meant at any given moment, or how it related to what he meant at any
other given moment?
>> You must realize that their point isn't "you have stated this principle
>> badly", which you seem to think it is. Their point is "evolution is wrong".
>
> Tony, like all YECs, not only accepts microevolution, but vast amounts
> of macroevolution within (not between) created kinds.
example?
Friar Broccoli
Feb 13, 2013, 5:18:20 PM2/13/13
to
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:25:35 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
This will probably be my last post until early March, but I want to
clear up one thing:
>> Also Popper in unquoted prefixes and suffixes makes reference
>> to "genetic drift".
>
>OK. He's wrong to attribute the peacock tail to drift, which it what
>makes it a bad example. I'm not sure how the existence of drift refutes
>natural selection. I suppose it would refute a hypothesis that natural
>selection is the cause of all fixations everywhere. But that seems quite
>another thing.
Popper did not (as far as I could tell) mangle sexual selection and
genetic drift with respect falsification of NS. He seemed to detail SxS
while making an indirect reference to drift.
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
This will probably be my last post until early March, but I want to
clear up one thing:
>> Also Popper in unquoted prefixes and suffixes makes reference
>> to "genetic drift".
>
>OK. He's wrong to attribute the peacock tail to drift, which it what
>makes it a bad example. I'm not sure how the existence of drift refutes
>natural selection. I suppose it would refute a hypothesis that natural
>selection is the cause of all fixations everywhere. But that seems quite
>another thing.
genetic drift with respect falsification of NS. He seemed to detail SxS
while making an indirect reference to drift.
John Harshman
Feb 13, 2013, 6:10:18 PM2/13/13
to
On 2/13/13 2:18 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:25:35 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> This will probably be my last post until early March, but I want to
> clear up one thing:
>
>>> Also Popper in unquoted prefixes and suffixes makes reference
>>> to "genetic drift".
>>
>> OK. He's wrong to attribute the peacock tail to drift, which it what
>> makes it a bad example. I'm not sure how the existence of drift refutes
>> natural selection. I suppose it would refute a hypothesis that natural
>> selection is the cause of all fixations everywhere. But that seems quite
>> another thing.
>
> Popper did not (as far as I could tell) mangle sexual selection and
> genetic drift with respect falsification of NS. He seemed to detail SxS
> while making an indirect reference to drift.
All I know is that the quoted passage mangles sexual selection.
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:25:35 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> This will probably be my last post until early March, but I want to
> clear up one thing:
>
>>> Also Popper in unquoted prefixes and suffixes makes reference
>>> to "genetic drift".
>>
>> OK. He's wrong to attribute the peacock tail to drift, which it what
>> makes it a bad example. I'm not sure how the existence of drift refutes
>> natural selection. I suppose it would refute a hypothesis that natural
>> selection is the cause of all fixations everywhere. But that seems quite
>> another thing.
>
> Popper did not (as far as I could tell) mangle sexual selection and
> genetic drift with respect falsification of NS. He seemed to detail SxS
> while making an indirect reference to drift.
Glenn
Feb 13, 2013, 6:15:50 PM2/13/13
to
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:Da-dnfmaMb_...@giganews.com...
Friar Broccoli
Feb 13, 2013, 6:50:32 PM2/13/13
to
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:10:18 -0800, John Harshman
The complete context is here:
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html
about 2/5ths of the way down.
Search for:
"What is important is to realize the explanatory task of natural
selection"
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html
about 2/5ths of the way down.
Search for:
"What is important is to realize the explanatory task of natural
selection"
Ray Martinez
Feb 20, 2013, 9:09:45 PM2/20/13
to
Ray
Ray Martinez
Feb 22, 2013, 4:04:51 PM2/22/13
to
On Feb 13, 6:50 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >>> Does that mean anything? "Fitness" summaries a group of specific and
> > >>> often competing characteristics. Fitness is a useful abstraction, but
> > >>> only an abstraction.
>
> > >> Yes, fitness is an abstraction. Concepts are abstractions. Just about
> > >> everything we know is an abstraction. Fitness is no different. So?
>
> > > Your epistemology is atrocious. Is fitness real or not?
>
> > Yes and no.
>
> Can't be both at the same time, Dr Harshman.
>
Yoo hoo, John, anyone home?
> > >>> Does that mean anything? "Fitness" summaries a group of specific and
> > >>> often competing characteristics. Fitness is a useful abstraction, but
> > >>> only an abstraction.
>
> > >> Yes, fitness is an abstraction. Concepts are abstractions. Just about
> > >> everything we know is an abstraction. Fitness is no different. So?
>
> > > Your epistemology is atrocious. Is fitness real or not?
>
> > Yes and no.
>
> Can't be both at the same time, Dr Harshman.
>
Ray
John Harshman
Feb 22, 2013, 6:03:07 PM2/22/13
to
real as any other abstract quality. Is acceleration real? Is electric
charge real? Is a species' geographic range real?
Ray Martinez
Feb 23, 2013, 1:24:35 PM2/23/13
to
Dr Harshman. Since you must, before the audience, maintain a
perception of infallibility, your comment above seeks to blame the
messenger.
Fitness either exists or it does not. You originally answered (from
above) "Yes and no." Then when pressed further you go with the
affirmative (does exist), comparable to acceleration, electric charge,
geographic range (things that exist).
Ray (non-credentialed)
Free Lunch
Feb 23, 2013, 1:51:51 PM2/23/13
to
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:24:35 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Feb 22, 3:03�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/22/13 1:04 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 13, 6:50 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> Does that mean anything? "Fitness" summaries a group of specific and
>> >>>>>> often competing characteristics. Fitness is a useful abstraction, but
>> >>>>>> only an abstraction.
>>
>> >>>>> Yes, fitness is an abstraction. Concepts are abstractions. Just about
>> >>>>> everything we know is an abstraction. Fitness is no different. So?
>>
>> >>>> Your epistemology is atrocious. Is fitness real or not?
>>
>> >>> Yes and no.
>>
>> >> Can't be both at the same time, Dr Harshman.
>>
>> > Yoo hoo, John, anyone home?
>>
>> Sorry, I'm just tired of explaining simple things to you. Fitness is as
>> real as any other abstract quality. Is acceleration real? Is electric
>> charge real? Is a species' geographic range real?
>
>I will never tire of pointing out your uneducated mistakes in logic,
>Dr Harshman. Since you must, before the audience, maintain a
>perception of infallibility, your comment above seeks to blame the
>messenger.
I haven't seen any evidence that you understand logic, Ray. Is this a
new skill that you have acquired?
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Feb 22, 3:03�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/22/13 1:04 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 13, 6:50 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> Does that mean anything? "Fitness" summaries a group of specific and
>> >>>>>> often competing characteristics. Fitness is a useful abstraction, but
>> >>>>>> only an abstraction.
>>
>> >>>>> Yes, fitness is an abstraction. Concepts are abstractions. Just about
>> >>>>> everything we know is an abstraction. Fitness is no different. So?
>>
>> >>>> Your epistemology is atrocious. Is fitness real or not?
>>
>> >>> Yes and no.
>>
>> >> Can't be both at the same time, Dr Harshman.
>>
>> > Yoo hoo, John, anyone home?
>>
>> Sorry, I'm just tired of explaining simple things to you. Fitness is as
>> real as any other abstract quality. Is acceleration real? Is electric
>> charge real? Is a species' geographic range real?
>
>I will never tire of pointing out your uneducated mistakes in logic,
>Dr Harshman. Since you must, before the audience, maintain a
>perception of infallibility, your comment above seeks to blame the
>messenger.
new skill that you have acquired?
Ray Martinez
Feb 23, 2013, 4:13:04 PM2/23/13
to
On Feb 23, 10:51�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:24:35 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:24:35 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 22, 3:03 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/22/13 1:04 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 13, 6:50 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>> Does that mean anything? "Fitness" summaries a group of specific and
> >> >>>>>> often competing characteristics. Fitness is a useful abstraction, but
> >> >>>>>> only an abstraction.
>
> >> >>>>> Yes, fitness is an abstraction. Concepts are abstractions. Just about
> >> >>>>> everything we know is an abstraction. Fitness is no different. So?
>
> >> >>>> Your epistemology is atrocious. Is fitness real or not?
>
> >> >>> Yes and no.
>
> >> >> Can't be both at the same time, Dr Harshman.
>
> >> > Yoo hoo, John, anyone home?
>
> >> Sorry, I'm just tired of explaining simple things to you. Fitness is as
> >> real as any other abstract quality. Is acceleration real? Is electric
> >> charge real? Is a species' geographic range real?
>
> >I will never tire of pointing out your uneducated mistakes in logic,
> >Dr Harshman. Since you must, before the audience, maintain a
> >perception of infallibility, your comment above seeks to blame the
> >messenger.
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 22, 3:03 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/22/13 1:04 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 13, 6:50 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>> Does that mean anything? "Fitness" summaries a group of specific and
> >> >>>>>> often competing characteristics. Fitness is a useful abstraction, but
> >> >>>>>> only an abstraction.
>
> >> >>>>> Yes, fitness is an abstraction. Concepts are abstractions. Just about
> >> >>>>> everything we know is an abstraction. Fitness is no different. So?
>
> >> >>>> Your epistemology is atrocious. Is fitness real or not?
>
> >> >>> Yes and no.
>
> >> >> Can't be both at the same time, Dr Harshman.
>
> >> > Yoo hoo, John, anyone home?
>
> >> Sorry, I'm just tired of explaining simple things to you. Fitness is as
> >> real as any other abstract quality. Is acceleration real? Is electric
> >> charge real? Is a species' geographic range real?
>
> >I will never tire of pointing out your uneducated mistakes in logic,
> >Dr Harshman. Since you must, before the audience, maintain a
> >perception of infallibility, your comment above seeks to blame the
> >messenger.
> >Fitness either exists or it does not. You originally answered (from
> >above) "Yes and no." Then when pressed further you go with the
> >affirmative (does exist), comparable to acceleration, electric charge,
> >geographic range (things that exist).
>
> >Ray (non-credentialed)
> I haven't seen any evidence that you understand logic, Ray. Is this a
> new skill that you have acquired?
You are mistaken; it was Dr John Harshman who said "Yes and no," not
> >above) "Yes and no." Then when pressed further you go with the
> >affirmative (does exist), comparable to acceleration, electric charge,
> >geographic range (things that exist).
>
> >Ray (non-credentialed)
> I haven't seen any evidence that you understand logic, Ray. Is this a
> new skill that you have acquired?
me. I said it can only be one or the other, not both.
Ray (non-credentialed)
John Harshman
Feb 23, 2013, 4:29:36 PM2/23/13
to
deal with is a simple yes or no, then I pick yes.
But let's consider this. In what sense does a geographic range exist?
It's really just an abstract estimate of areas in which one might find
members of a species. Any particular part of that range might be
debatable, especially is some years go by without any member of the
species (works best with sparse populations) entering that spot. It's an
abstraction, not something you can point to physically. Like fitness.
Stephanus
Mar 5, 2013, 10:08:26 AM3/5/13
to
is in its essence.
Friar Broccoli
Mar 5, 2013, 2:32:30 PM3/5/13
to
>We do not know what energy,gravity, electricity, magnetism or a force
>is in its essence.
Friar Broccoli
Mar 9, 2013, 10:49:56 AM3/9/13
to
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:23:25 -0800 (PST), Stephanus
<srens...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jan 10, 8:56 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Detailed discussions of the meaning of tautology in the context of
>> evolution invariably become impossible tangles of arguments built on
>> debatable suppositions.
>
>The context is logical necessities or logical tautologies and
>rhetorical tautologies as I defined it on the main Wikipedia
>rhetorical
>tautology page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_tautology
Hesperus is Phosphorus
<srens...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jan 10, 8:56 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Detailed discussions of the meaning of tautology in the context of
>> evolution invariably become impossible tangles of arguments built on
>> debatable suppositions.
>
>rhetorical tautologies as I defined it on the main Wikipedia
>rhetorical
>tautology page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_tautology
Hesperus is Phosphorus
Friar Broccoli
Apr 20, 2013, 1:41:42 PM4/20/13
to
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:25:35 -0800, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 2/10/13 8:14 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
[snipping for focus]
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 2/10/13 8:14 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> How does this support your claim that the tautology argument refers to a
>> real concept?
>
>I'm not clear on what "real concept" is supposed to do. I'm saying that
>the tautology argument refers to natural selection, whatever words you
>may use to describe it. Natural selection is a real concept, though
>creationists may not understand that concept. Still, they are attacking
>the concept, not the wording, and behind that they are attacking evolution.
arguments (like Popper's), I found and read (many months ago) an
article by Brady in Systematic Zoology Vol. 28, No. 4, Dec., 1979
The for money version is here:
www.jstor.org/stable/2412570
Presently there is a pdf photocopy here:
http://aracnologia.macn.gov.ar/clado/Brady%201979.pdf
It is the best statement of the tautology argument I have seen and so I
am trying to make sure it should be possible to address all it's points
after reading the re-revised tautology faq I am now working on.
The entire discussion is tedious so here are a few quotes:
___________________________________________________________________________________
pg 605 (right top)
But as Darwin admitted, we do not readily perceive the relations that
confer actual survival on the animal. If fitness could not be detected
independently of survival, said Bethell, then any attempt to
operationalize the concept with regard to actual observations would Wind
up equating it with survival, making the argument tautologous (We are
really testing the survival of the survivors).
___________________________________________________________________________________
pg 606 (left 1/2)
It survives in that environment. Thus, no matter how we explain good
design after the hut, the criterion used for the (detection of good
design is always survival.
___________________________________________________________________________________
pg 606 (right 1/2)
We may indeed hypothesize that the organism survives because certain
traits, capable of selection, confer fitness upon it, but operationally
We have allowed survival to stand for fitness-thus identifying the
two-and We cannot meet the requirement that two independent observations
be compared. Our claim that fitness causes survival seems to be reduced,
in our operational procedure, to the claim that survival causes
survival, which explains nothing.
___________________________________________________________________________________
pg 608 (right 1/4)
The "because" here can only explain our reasons for speaking in this
fashion-that is, Smith uses the words in this manner because he means
them to be synonymous; "fit" is "adapted" or "harmonious"-since it
cannot contribute to any causal speculation. After all, to tell us that
an organism is lit because it survives better than less fit organisms is
only to tell us how one will use the words. There is still no hint of
what constitutes fitness other than survival.
___________________________________________________________________________________
pg 615 (right 2/3)
We have no Way of summing the contributions of various structures to the
survival of the whole organism. All ceteris parbus clauses are
inexhaustible, but at least some are theoretically determinate, to be
investigated on the basis of the same laws that are under question (the
possible parameters influencing the orbit of Mercury would be calculated
according to the same theory by which the orbit was itself calculated).
The clause that attends our investigations into optimalization of
adaptation is not determinate.
___________________________________________________________________________________
pg 618 (left 3/4)
Let me illustrate the point above. Maynard Smith points out, in a
passage quoted above, that "most organs can readily be understood as
contributing to survival and reproduction," and reminds us that were
this not the case Darwinism would never have been accepted in the first
place. The fact that these organs can he "understood"-represented-in
this way is important, but it guarantees nothing more than the
possibility of truth.
___________________________________________________________________________________
pg 621 the conclusion:
Natural selection has demonstrated its ability to represent the world in
its terms and to compel belief. It has been of crucial importance
historically, in that it Was instrumental in the conversion of the
biological community to evolutionary thought. But until the organism can
he theoretically reduced to determinate laws, the theory is too
incomplete to he testable. Applications of the theory, therefore, tell
us more about the theory than the World, and do not serve the purpose of
efficiently investigating the latter. When the confusion between test
and application is eliminated, the present dialogue on the merit of the
theory may emerge from the miasma of miscommunication, and the theory's
value for various intentions be clearly estimated. Given that the stated
purpose of most research is the investigation of the world, it may he
that, until such time as a complete theory is put forward, the effort
expended on applications of natural selection would be best spent
elsewhere-either in other research, or in the attempt to formulate a
more workable theory to replace Darwin's speculation.
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
Taken in summary his argument seems to be that NS is too complicated to
be practically *operationalized* and is thus effectively a tautology.
I'm not sure if the argument thus stated is a word game, since biology
is necessarily extremely complex and thus not summarizable except in
terms that will be (over) simplifications.
John Harshman
Apr 20, 2013, 2:38:27 PM4/20/13
to
natural selection?
Friar Broccoli
Apr 20, 2013, 6:28:07 PM4/20/13
to
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:38:27 -0700, John Harshman
Just say that, yes biology is the most complex process known and thus
difficult to simplify into a two or three word (or longer) expression.
When you do summarize it into a few words, those words are going to hide
a lot of detail, that can be summarized only at the cost of meaning.
Also the many forces involved mean that it will almost never be possible
to derive conclusions except statistically.
Do you have a better suggestion?
difficult to simplify into a two or three word (or longer) expression.
When you do summarize it into a few words, those words are going to hide
a lot of detail, that can be summarized only at the cost of meaning.
Also the many forces involved mean that it will almost never be possible
to derive conclusions except statistically.
Do you have a better suggestion?
John Harshman
Apr 21, 2013, 10:01:10 AM4/21/13
to
statistical conclusions?
Friar Broccoli
Apr 21, 2013, 2:12:47 PM4/21/13
to
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 07:01:10 -0700, John Harshman
.
>I truly don't think any of that was useful.
Any of what?
Was that supposed to be a better suggestion?
> And what's wrong with statistical conclusions?
Nothing that I know of. Do you have a problem with them?
What follows is my first draft of an attempt to deal with Brady's
points. (I've pulled much of the content out of the intended section on
defining tautologies and used it as part of an argument.)
______________________________________________________________
Subtitle: Dealing with the tautology claim in a discussion.
While it is useful to know that creationists have no plausible
alternative to NS/SoF it may still be difficult to directly deal with an
effective formulation of the tautology claim itself. One of the best
statements of the that argument was made by the philosopher, Brady in
1979:
"... to tell us that an organism is fit because it survives better than
exactly do you define fitness, except in terms of survival, leading to a
circular definition. Here we present two alternative ways of presenting
that answer:
1) Directly examine the meaning of the words survival and fitness
2) Allow that SoF may be a tautology, but not of a problematic variety.
Looking first to the meaning of the words.
"Survival" conceals a host of possible meanings:
- frequency of a characteristic (allele) in a population
- continuing existence of individual cells (ex: cancer or fetal nerve)
- existence of an individual for some duration
- lifetime reproductive success of an individual
- lifetime reproductive success of a breeding pair
- size of a population at or during some time
- duration of a population before extinction
- the likelihood that a species will give rise to other descendant
species
The above list is far from exhaustive, and is intended only to show that
the meaning of "survive" needs to be unpacked and precisely specified in
any given research context.
"Fitness" also conceals many possible meanings, although these tend to
be overlapping and competing. Note also that fitness is empty as an
independent concept, it is an attribute of a characteristic. These
characters relate to properties like:
- movement
- defense/capture
characteristics, we see that there is no overlapping meaning at all, and
thus no possibility of a tautology. All we see is enormous complexity
which has been summarized in the words "survival" and "fitness" It
seems that the complexity alone is the only thing that allows a
tautology claim to appear plausible.
Nevertheless, for historical reasons we remain with the terms "survival"
and "fit", and fit is the term which links characteristics to survival
in Darwin's theory of evolution. Further, perhaps when all the implied
characteristics have been extracted from "fitness" there really is
nothing left but "survival". In this sense the meaning of fitness is
entirely within the meaning of survival and thus tautological. Is that
a problem?
On this interpretation if we convert SoF into the simplest possible
propositional form (a fundamental requirement of a tautology) we get
"The survivors are fittest." This statement is defined as a tautology
when the predicate "fittest" is fully included in the subject
"survivors." But hold on: that definition of tautology is exactly the
same one that Aquinas gave for a proposition that is "self-evident" and
Kant gave for a judgment that is analytically true.
The type example given by Aquinas was "Man is an animal" and by Kant
"All bodies are extended." Both these statements are both tautologies
and transparently true. Similarly "survivors are fit" might be
characterised as a self-evident truth that really has nothing to do with
NS, it simply fits into the explanation of Darwin's theory. Thus, some
tautologies are simply unproblematic truths.
>I truly don't think any of that was useful.
Was that supposed to be a better suggestion?
> And what's wrong with statistical conclusions?
What follows is my first draft of an attempt to deal with Brady's
points. (I've pulled much of the content out of the intended section on
defining tautologies and used it as part of an argument.)
______________________________________________________________
Subtitle: Dealing with the tautology claim in a discussion.
While it is useful to know that creationists have no plausible
alternative to NS/SoF it may still be difficult to directly deal with an
effective formulation of the tautology claim itself. One of the best
statements of the that argument was made by the philosopher, Brady in
1979:
"... to tell us that an organism is fit because it survives better than
less fit organisms is only to tell us how one will use the words. There
is still no hint of what constitutes fitness other than survival."
Thus the defender of NS is compelled to answer the question: How
is still no hint of what constitutes fitness other than survival."
exactly do you define fitness, except in terms of survival, leading to a
circular definition. Here we present two alternative ways of presenting
that answer:
1) Directly examine the meaning of the words survival and fitness
2) Allow that SoF may be a tautology, but not of a problematic variety.
Looking first to the meaning of the words.
"Survival" conceals a host of possible meanings:
- frequency of a characteristic (allele) in a population
- continuing existence of individual cells (ex: cancer or fetal nerve)
- existence of an individual for some duration
- lifetime reproductive success of an individual
- lifetime reproductive success of a breeding pair
- size of a population at or during some time
- duration of a population before extinction
- the likelihood that a species will give rise to other descendant
species
The above list is far from exhaustive, and is intended only to show that
the meaning of "survive" needs to be unpacked and precisely specified in
any given research context.
"Fitness" also conceals many possible meanings, although these tend to
be overlapping and competing. Note also that fitness is empty as an
independent concept, it is an attribute of a characteristic. These
characters relate to properties like:
- movement
- defense/capture
- camouflage
- detection/perception
- digestion
- temperature and chemical balance
- immunity
- reproduction
When we look at the lists of possible meanings for survival and fit
- detection/perception
- digestion
- temperature and chemical balance
- immunity
- reproduction
characteristics, we see that there is no overlapping meaning at all, and
thus no possibility of a tautology. All we see is enormous complexity
which has been summarized in the words "survival" and "fitness" It
seems that the complexity alone is the only thing that allows a
tautology claim to appear plausible.
Nevertheless, for historical reasons we remain with the terms "survival"
and "fit", and fit is the term which links characteristics to survival
in Darwin's theory of evolution. Further, perhaps when all the implied
characteristics have been extracted from "fitness" there really is
nothing left but "survival". In this sense the meaning of fitness is
entirely within the meaning of survival and thus tautological. Is that
a problem?
On this interpretation if we convert SoF into the simplest possible
propositional form (a fundamental requirement of a tautology) we get
"The survivors are fittest." This statement is defined as a tautology
when the predicate "fittest" is fully included in the subject
"survivors." But hold on: that definition of tautology is exactly the
same one that Aquinas gave for a proposition that is "self-evident" and
Kant gave for a judgment that is analytically true.
The type example given by Aquinas was "Man is an animal" and by Kant
"All bodies are extended." Both these statements are both tautologies
and transparently true. Similarly "survivors are fit" might be
characterised as a self-evident truth that really has nothing to do with
NS, it simply fits into the explanation of Darwin's theory. Thus, some
tautologies are simply unproblematic truths.
John Harshman
Apr 21, 2013, 4:10:34 PM4/21/13
to
>> And what's wrong with statistical conclusions?
>
> Nothing that I know of. Do you have a problem with them?
conclusions except statistically" would seem to imply that such
conclusions are not as good as we would like.
than survival as we would ordinarily use it. And they never discuss
fitness in such terms. "Survival of the fittest" is not something
biologists talk about. And if you intend "fitness", then only the fourth
meaning is relevant.
> "Fitness" also conceals many possible meanings, although these tend to
> be overlapping and competing. Note also that fitness is empty as an
> independent concept, it is an attribute of a characteristic. These
> characters relate to properties like:
>
> - movement
> - defense/capture
> - camouflage
> - detection/perception
> - digestion
> - temperature and chemical balance
> - immunity
> - reproduction
summarizes all aspects of genotype that affect reproductive success.
to me what of use you are trying to say. This text seems fixated on the
meaning of a term that biologists don't use and on another term that has
a couple of simple, mathematical definitions without discussing those
definitions. It's a step backwards.
Ray Martinez
Apr 21, 2013, 4:56:55 PM4/21/13
to
when pressed you're able to "sober-up" temporarily.
> But let's consider this.
> In what sense does a geographic range exist?
concept exists, because it has a corresponding material structure.
> It's really just an abstract estimate of areas in which one might find
> members of a species.
we have existence, existence exists. What's in "continual dispute" is
extent of range or fluctuation of range, not existence of range.
> Any particular part of that range might be
> debatable, especially is some years go by without any member of the
> species (works best with sparse populations) entering that spot. It's an
> abstraction, not something you can point to physically. Like fitness.
(think realistically, logically). The thinking process seen, in the
comments above, maintain concept existence until the sentence before
last. Then, suddenly, in this sentence, the concept under
consideration (geographic range) is demoted out of physical reality
because of extent and fluctuation variance.
Ray
Burkhard
Apr 21, 2013, 5:44:03 PM4/21/13
to
Friar Broccoli
Apr 21, 2013, 7:33:48 PM4/21/13
to
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:10:34 -0700, John Harshman
I just spent six months reading trying to get a better handle on this
issue. I give.
issue. I give.
John Harshman
Apr 21, 2013, 8:19:35 PM4/21/13
to
either/or. Creationists commonly view all things as black/white
dichotomies, so I'm not surprised.
>> But let's consider this.
>
> Yes, let's.
>
>> In what sense does a geographic range exist?
>
> In the only sense it can: in reality, in nature; that's why the
> concept exists, because it has a corresponding material structure.
>
>> It's really just an abstract estimate of areas in which one might find
>> members of a species.
>
> Since one can find members of species in these areas the same exists;
> we have existence, existence exists. What's in "continual dispute" is
> extent of range or fluctuation of range, not existence of range.
is merely a list of all locations where a member of that species is at
the moment. And this range would then change moment by moment if, for
example, one of those members is moving. That isn't at all what we mean
by species range. It's an abstraction.
>> Any particular part of that range might be
>> debatable, especially is some years go by without any member of the
>> species (works best with sparse populations) entering that spot. It's an
>> abstraction, not something you can point to physically. Like fitness.
>
> Like I observed above, you're only able to "sober-up" temporarily
> (think realistically, logically). The thinking process seen, in the
> comments above, maintain concept existence until the sentence before
> last. Then, suddenly, in this sentence, the concept under
> consideration (geographic range) is demoted out of physical reality
> because of extent and fluctuation variance.
nothing I can do about that, apparently.
Burkhard
Apr 22, 2013, 3:46:56 AM4/22/13
to
"the answer depends on what you mean".
Simple illustration:
Question: Does the Roman Empire exist?
answer: Yes:
Comeback: Oh? So where can I visit it, have a chat with its leader,
see the population?
Question: Does the Roman Empire exist?
answer: No:
Comeback: ah, so it is like the Kingdom of Fairy, a pure imagination?
How comes then that we can still dig up coins with Roman emperors on
it, and where do all the ruins in Rome come from?
So both answers, yes and no, can be misunderstood, hence it is a good
idea to qualify it:
Question: Does the Roman Empire exist?
answer: Yes and no, it depends what you mean. It exists like every
other thing that once had a physical presence, but is not around in
the present
Comeback: Oh, I see.
Generally, people disagree what sort of things merit the label
"existence" - that is what the discipline of ontology in philosophy is
all about. On one extreme, you get people like Meinong (or myself) who
say that everything exists - which makes existence an uninteresting
quality. On the other end, you get reductionists who say that the only
things that truly "exists" are of a very limited category, typically
individual, physical objects (historically e.g. atoms) Everything
else is "just a way of speaking", a "useful fiction" or "an
abstraction" John Wilkins here gets close to this position. In
between, you get all sorts of hybrids between the two.
Whatever position you take though, you might want to make a
distinction between things such as "electricity", "the colour red",
"the number 5" "homo sapiens" and "the United states" on the one hand,
"the Kingdom of Fairy", "Sherlock Holmes", or "Phlogiston" on the
other. Especially if you are a reductionist and someone asks you does
"electricity", "the colour red", "the number 5" "homo sapiens" and
"the United states" exist, you don't want to say simply "no", because
your philosophy entails that only individual physical objects exist
and they are nothing but terms for useful fiction, because it may
mislead the person you are talking to into thinking that they are the
same as "Sherlock Holmes" or "Phlogiston".
Because people take different stances on what "existence" means
therefore, it is helpful to clarify in your answers what exactly you
mean, which is what John did. If you ask me if "natural selection"
exists, then my answer would be trivially "yes2, but without
qualification misleading, as I also think that Zeus, Sherlock Holmes,
the kingdom of fairy and phlogiston exists. you might think I told you
something of substance, when I simply uttered (from my perspective) a
tautology - everything exists, If you ask a reductionist "does natural
selection exist" and he says no, then he too will have mislead you, as
for him, the "no" simply means: it is a useful theoretical concept
just like any other scientific concept, energy, magnetism, geographic
range, country etc.NOT because he things the ToE is questionable, or
natural selection a scientifically wrong concept like phlogiston.
The only way to avoid misunderstandings is hence to qualify your
answer - yes and no, it depends what you mean with "exist", it exists
in teh same way as e.g. energy, countris, geographical ranges or
gravity. That tells you all you need to get the right idea
>
> Ray (non-credentialed)
and it shows
John S. Wilkins
Apr 22, 2013, 5:48:35 AM4/22/13
to
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Generally, people disagree what sort of things merit the label
> "existence" - that is what the discipline of ontology in philosophy is
> all about. On one extreme, you get people like Meinong (or myself) who
> say that everything exists - which makes existence an uninteresting
> quality. On the other end, you get reductionists who say that the only
> things that truly "exists" are of a very limited category, typically
> individual, physical objects (historically e.g. atoms) Everything
> else is "just a way of speaking", a "useful fiction" or "an
> abstraction" John Wilkins here gets close to this position. In
> between, you get all sorts of hybrids between the two.
I don't know that's a useful way to explain my position. I think that
> Generally, people disagree what sort of things merit the label
> "existence" - that is what the discipline of ontology in philosophy is
> all about. On one extreme, you get people like Meinong (or myself) who
> say that everything exists - which makes existence an uninteresting
> quality. On the other end, you get reductionists who say that the only
> things that truly "exists" are of a very limited category, typically
> individual, physical objects (historically e.g. atoms) Everything
> else is "just a way of speaking", a "useful fiction" or "an
> abstraction" John Wilkins here gets close to this position. In
> between, you get all sorts of hybrids between the two.
objects are real as phenomena. That is, a mountain exists (you can't act
as if it isn't there - you either have to go over it, around it or
through it), but the explanation of it resolves down to physical
elemental properties like fermions and hadrons in a quantum field.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Burkhard
Apr 22, 2013, 6:03:32 AM4/22/13
to
On Apr 22, 10:48�am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
your name in.
Just out of interest though, what about the fiat boundaries for
specific named mountains such as "mount Everest" -- or are you happy
with objects with fuzzy identity conditions?
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Generally, people disagree what sort of things merit the label
> > "existence" - that is what the discipline of ontology in philosophy is
> > all about. On one extreme, you get people like Meinong (or myself) who
> > say that everything exists - which makes existence an uninteresting
> > quality. On the other end, you get reductionists who say that the only
> > things that truly "exists" are of a very limited category, �typically
> > individual, physical objects (historically e.g. �atoms) Everything
> > else is "just a way of speaking", a "useful fiction" or "an
> > abstraction" John Wilkins here gets close to this position. In
> > between, you get all sorts of hybrids between the two.
>
> I don't know that's a useful way to explain my position. I think that
> objects are real as phenomena. That is, a mountain exists (you can't act
> as if it isn't there - you either have to go over it, around it or
> through it), but the explanation of it resolves down to physical
> elemental properties like fermions and hadrons in a quantum field.
> --
Yes, that's a much better way of putting it, and sorry for dragging
> > Generally, people disagree what sort of things merit the label
> > "existence" - that is what the discipline of ontology in philosophy is
> > all about. On one extreme, you get people like Meinong (or myself) who
> > say that everything exists - which makes existence an uninteresting
> > quality. On the other end, you get reductionists who say that the only
> > things that truly "exists" are of a very limited category, �typically
> > individual, physical objects (historically e.g. �atoms) Everything
> > else is "just a way of speaking", a "useful fiction" or "an
> > abstraction" John Wilkins here gets close to this position. In
> > between, you get all sorts of hybrids between the two.
>
> I don't know that's a useful way to explain my position. I think that
> objects are real as phenomena. That is, a mountain exists (you can't act
> as if it isn't there - you either have to go over it, around it or
> through it), but the explanation of it resolves down to physical
> elemental properties like fermions and hadrons in a quantum field.
> --
your name in.
Just out of interest though, what about the fiat boundaries for
specific named mountains such as "mount Everest" -- or are you happy
with objects with fuzzy identity conditions?
John S. Wilkins
Apr 22, 2013, 6:15:25 AM4/22/13
to
differentiable observables. Mountains don't have a definition, but they
do have differentiable observables that indicate underlying real things.
That is, you can identify a difference of an appreciable magnitude in
height and surrounding elevations.
walksalone
Apr 22, 2013, 8:55:59 AM4/22/13
to
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote in
news:1l1qw3d.lzkcp61huat9lN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:
> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 22, 10:48 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
snip, for obvious reasons.
>> Just out of interest though, what about the fiat boundaries for
>> specific named mountains such as "mount Everest" -- or are you happy
>> with objects with fuzzy identity conditions?
>
> Phenomena rely on pattern recognition, and for that you need
> differentiable observables. Mountains don't have a definition, but
The, big f*ng rock, or a landscape featue that extends over 1000 feet
above ground level won't do. I would be crushed but I prefer big f*ing
rock.
> they do have differentiable observables that indicate underlying real
> things. That is, you can identify a difference of an appreciable
> magnitude in height and surrounding elevations.
Not being schooled in philosophy, I am going to take that as why would
that be needed if one can see? After all, if one is going up the
mountain [in the recreational sense] one loses their perspective & their
mountain may well not be visible. Using past observation, which is the
only way I could go, works. But what about those that are, [say like
sourcecode] unsure of their definitions, or confused by the terminology?
walksalone who just having fun, as the saying goes. But then, what else
is there to do in Talabama of a Monday morning.
Tsao Hsueh-chin
When the unreal is taken for the real, the real becomes unreal."
news:1l1qw3d.lzkcp61huat9lN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:
> Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 22, 10:48 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Just out of interest though, what about the fiat boundaries for
>> specific named mountains such as "mount Everest" -- or are you happy
>> with objects with fuzzy identity conditions?
>
> Phenomena rely on pattern recognition, and for that you need
> differentiable observables. Mountains don't have a definition, but
above ground level won't do. I would be crushed but I prefer big f*ing
rock.
> they do have differentiable observables that indicate underlying real
> things. That is, you can identify a difference of an appreciable
> magnitude in height and surrounding elevations.
that be needed if one can see? After all, if one is going up the
mountain [in the recreational sense] one loses their perspective & their
mountain may well not be visible. Using past observation, which is the
only way I could go, works. But what about those that are, [say like
sourcecode] unsure of their definitions, or confused by the terminology?
walksalone who just having fun, as the saying goes. But then, what else
is there to do in Talabama of a Monday morning.
Tsao Hsueh-chin
When the unreal is taken for the real, the real becomes unreal."
0 new messages