On Jan 9, 2:47 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com
> On Jan 9, 2:14 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk
> > On Jan 9, 1:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com
> > >http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f.
> > > ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
> > > Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
> > circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A. Since this holds
> > in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
> > tautologous in the technical sense.
> ''.... Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
> Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion? As far as I can
> see perpetuate and proliferate says the same thing twice in all
> contexts whatever your premise and conclusion.
Since this does not seem to be an argument at all, but a statement of
fact, something we simply observe, the talk of "premise" and
"conclusion" is inapplicable. Nor do proliferate and perpetuate say
the same thing. One is about quantity, the other about endurance.
What we could have observed e.g are animals that proliferate a lot
(have lots of offspring) but they don't perpetuate the offspring, as
it dies before being able to procreate in turn (in an extreme form
getting eaten by their parents) . So the statement (bearing in mind I
don;t know the context) simply says is what we observe in nature is
that animals that proliferate (parent generation) have a statistically
increased chance that their traits are perpetuated in their
grandchildren and grand-grandchildrens etc generations. There are of
course several possible new observations we coudl intheory mae that
woudl call the correctness of this statement into question.
> A tautology can't be refuted , nor verified in any context.
a tautology is by definition true in every context, i.e. self-
> circular reasoning , if it can be shown what premise , not clearly
> stated by the formulator is being assumed then we can make his
> conclusion conditional on exploring the validity of his premise and
> thus perhaps agree that his conclusion follows logically from his
> premise. With tautologies, any conclusion is a non-sequitur.
That doesn't make much sense. As I said, every circular argument is
itself a tautology.
Nor is it true that you can't derive valid conclusions from an
argument where the premises
are all tautologies - all mathematical proofs are of that form. So
there are lots of arguments
that are not just valid, but extremely interesting, that have
tautologies as premises.
> With the evo debates , we have two issues:
> 1) It is assumed that fossil dead bones had babies that made it to
> reproductive age, something we will never know.
We know it with the same degree of certainty that we can know that
people 2000 years ago had offspring.
We observe that today, all species of animals have members that have
offspring that at least in some cases has offspring in turn.
Nothing form the physiology of the dead bones indicates that animals
in the past were
not able to have viable offspring, and indeed the fact that we find
a) fossils of eggs and juveniles and b) in some cases even fossilised
pretty strongly indicates they had offspring just as we do. With the
evidence as strong as that, any claim to the contrary has the burden
of proof - so if you find e.g.
genetic or skeletal evidence that shows that animals in the apst
were all sterile, feel free to show it - this woudl indeed falsify the
ToE, one of the many ways that this can be done.
> 2) To obfuscate this fact a struggle theme or battle between the
> creatures is introduced which can't be falsified.
Course it can. Finding evidence that all species survive due to
abundance, or all die out after a set period of time, would falsify
the idea that there is competition for scarce resources.
> > > Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.
> > Begging the question is not the same as circular reasoning,
> I am aware of this, but have not yet been able to formulate why in
> words clearly. The technical def. of begging the question though is
> that the conclusion is formulated without stating the premise or
> twisting the premise. Circular reasoning on the other hand is assuming
> the premise in conclusion, meaning that the premise is stated clearly
> but that it can't be assumed because the premise is in dispute. For
> example Tiktaalik, we are told that he was the ancestor of somebody
> else. Thus the premise is that he had kids, something we can't
We can assume it on the basis that its physiology indicates the
features we would expect in any creature that procreates.
That is really all we need to know to make this a valid, if of course