Tautology Wiki

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2011-10/msg02062.html Ray Martinez states that under the rubric of ns we have a list of truisms asserted to be a mechanism. I make the same point in the main Tautology article namely that claims of logic are invoked as a mechanism because the universal mechanism - Life1 that spawns us into existence can't be defined under materialism.


Rolf: No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because you don't *want* it to exist.

Ray replies: I understand natural selection to be nonsense and illogic, so yes, it is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be true.

Taking your two posts together you are you saying either: 1) That a truism is nonsense 2) That it is a logical fallacy to invoke claims of logic as a mechanism where the expectation for a falsifiable physics equation.

The most reasonable inference would be 2). Furthermore you mean to say that the concept of invoking truisms as mechanism which are *symbolically* represented with the contracted shorthand natural selection is a fallacy.

Now my point is this: There is nothing in the *dictionary* definition of the terms 'natural' and 'selection' that even remotely indicates your and my mutually agreed *interpretation* of *sentences* containing the term ns. Hence the meaning we derive from a sentence is context dependent.

Natural selection as oxymoronic stand-alone term, can be no more a fallacy than the stand alone Pleonasm terms 'black darkness' or 'free gift' are , because only *sentences can be fallacies, tautologies or illogical.

Is the contention that "free gift2" is a tautologytrue? . To assert that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to miss-frame the particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift2" but it sometimes comes bundled with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner asks first "if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets the answer "no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free gift" of dinner. It is incorrect that no gift can ever have non-free implications attached to it, therefore the term free-gift is a Pleonasm and not a tautology: only sentences can be tautologies. A tautology explains everything under all conditions,from the man providing a 'free-gift' is clear that the same sentence could in another context imply non-reciprocating behavior from the person receiving the gift. Thus the sentence doesn't explain everything in all contexts.

Reference: See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Premise