Tautology Wiki

Metaphorically or literally[]

Theism views the objects like selection,evolution,random,non-random etc. as tools to represent patterns or designs, either directly or metaphorically. A pattern(leaves rustling on the ground) represents only itself, while a design(robot) represents something other than itself - Peppered Moth Pattern or Design, Pattern or design. The theist premise are that information is neither matter,time or energy, it is like the number 7 neither here nor there. Selection,decision,evolution etc. are objects they don't mean anything, but are used by the two conflicting world views, materialism and theism, to represent their ideas in the pattern or design sense.

  • 1)Materialism: Design,life,reality is a subset of pattern. Meaning that information,experiences are bound to matter,space and time. In the beginning was nothing which then created something in violation of First law of thermodynamics.
  • 2)Theism: Patterns are a subset of Design,Life,Truth,Love etc. Information has no physical location. In the begining was Language, there was no First law of thermodynamics.

Both world views use the same objects selection,natural, decision, survival etc. but are projecting a meaning they assume but can't prove, in conflict with the other world view , leading to increasingly meaningless debates. Complicating the matter is the fact that the Epicureans(evolutionists) refuse to document what they understand with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design at wikipedia. They reject the theist Pattern or design dichotomy world view, but it isn't clear what they object to. In other words they don't define what it is that they assume and will never be able to prove(Godel's_incompleteness_theorem). Any chain of reasoning, religion or world view eventually runs into a Godelian Wall.

d/dx is a universal operator in math that is applied to a function. The study of Life (biology) lacks this operator because we can't define life. Epicureans try to emulate d/dx by invoking the term NS, which as some sort of universal mechanism is no more plausible than a single differential equation explaining all of physics. Alchemy was only stopped after Gold and lead were defined in terms of molecular theory. Prof. Cleland from Nasa astrobiology pointed out that before the discovery that water is H20, acids were called 'weak' and 'strong' water. Likewise the very thing that Epicureans claims to study - Life(biology) itself - isn't defined, and thus we don't know whether anything analogous to d/dx is applicable - Life1 . See also calls Darwin's theories 'weak'.

The YEC, theist and atheist proponents of either world view are using grammatically correct, but meaningless sentences around the word 'selection'. These meaningless sentences use dissimilar terms that tautologically allude to the same fact, which in turn hides the circularity in the narrative surrounding the fossils. The fossil circular reasoning is an unintended side-effect of infusing the ancient mythologies(fire/water, Gods against see serpent, Zeus, Osiris) into our culture, that is retold in a disguised form in order to displace the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian world view - OriginOfSpeciesAsMyth, Adrew_Dickson_White.

With the term selection or Natural Selection, mythological thinking is fused into our culture by formulating grammatical correct but meaningless sentences. It has made society in a sense insane, unable to accept Paul's gospel of Christ and him crucified. The mythological theme is the tautology ....destruction of the unfavorable.... atom, gene,car,Dagan(fish God), Giant see serpent, Isis etc.... and preservation of the good atom and therefore there is no God(we are result of Aristotle's accident)...., which was reformulated in various ways by all the Greek philosophers Heraclitus, Democritus, Empedocles, Aristotle etc. Destruction implies unfavorability and vice-versa (the other way around), saying the same thing twice, making the conclusion(there is no God) a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29.

Darwin encoded for the same mythology as formulated by MalThus using the term Natural Selection. It was a contraction of PatrickMatthew's natural competitive selection, in order to avoid giving credit to Matthew who coined the term in 1831.

Notes 2[]

Tautologies are most dangerous when they are unobvious and escape our detection. In such cases we must unmask the tautology by plugging in the definitions of the words. - Walter Remine

The origins debate the last 6000 years have contained a logical flaw in the structure of the arguments. From YEC, Blyth, Neo-Platonism, Gandalf the tribal wizard(3000 BC), Epicurus, Democritus, Aquinas and Marcel_Schützenberger etc. This flaw prevents us from comprehending the arguments for and against Irreducible Functionality, saturated with the phrase NS1Naming Conventions, functioning as some sort of universal mechanism or operator, trying to immitate d/dx in mathematics. - Bio evolution lacks both a dynamic and an object

A tautology1,2,3,x is the semantic label for saying the same thing twice. All the different types of tautologies, validity's and pleonasms reside under the rubric of semantic tautology. Under this heading we have:

necessary truths, axioms or logical validity's - Tautology1. They can't be verified but neither refuted because they are axiomatic logical assertions.

An expression (as opposed to an assertion) is considered tautologicalx if it contains redundant information. For example, "to return back again" is tautological2(pleonasm) because the sense of "back again" is already fully contained within the word "return", and so is redundant but not necessarily fallacious.

Logical validity's should be viewed as "promissory notes", taken by faith a shadowing of Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Ultimately everything we do or say in religion, science, engineering and politics are based on a "promissory note". There is in no such thing as an empirical "scientific" reality only a reality of faith which is the evidence of things not seen, the firm conviction that our existence based on a promise has ultimate meaning.

Our entire system of being, condition of existence hopes and dreams are based on assumptions, promissory notes, than can't be verified but neither refuted. How do we therefore know what the Truth is? Tarski showed with Semantic theory of truth that any attempt at deriving Truth itself from logic leads to a contradiction. 'Empirical reality' is another synonym for truth. More on this from http://raherrmann.com , Prof. Herrmann Ph.D in math US Naval Academy.(He is a YEC who believes that Dembski's ID is Restricted Design theory). What http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tautology.html refers to as logical tautologies can be more accurately defined as logical validity's , the only evidence for their valid nature is faith. The symbolic mathematical expression of these validity's by themselves aren't fallacies, they are not rhetorical tautologies.

Tautological expressions or what http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com refers to as non-tautological propositions - Tautology2 - http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/when-is-a-tautology-not-a-tautology.html. A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm (Pleonasm) is in reality a tautological2 expression and specifically not a manifestation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)3.

A Tautological2 expression or Pleonasm2 aids in achieving a specific linguistic effect, be it social, poetic, or literary. In particular, pleonasm sometimes serves the same function as rhetorical repetition — it can be used to reinforce an idea, contention or question, rendering writing clearer and easier to understand. Such Pleonasms can be found in the book of Psalms.

Is the contention that "free gift2" is a tautology1,2 or 3? true? . To assert that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to miss-frame the particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift2" but it sometimes comes bundled with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner asks first "if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets the answer "no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free gift" of dinner. It is incorrect that no gift can ever have non-free implications attached to it.

Another example is "suddenly, without warning". If two armies oppose each other in the field and one commander sends the opposition a warning message as follows "I instruct you to retreat or I will attack", any subsequent attack, sudden or otherwise, was warned. "Sudden" means "happening or coming unexpectedly". But students of military history have noted; via effective deception, any attack can be seen as "sudden", even if fair warning was previously given.

A rhetorical tautology3 is a truism, masquerading as a logical validity from which a conclusion is drawn that doesn't follow logically(non-sequitur).

Rhetorical tautologies3 which are fallacious forms of deriving conclusion which are non-sequiturs - Tautology3 . To which idea is being referred to must be derived from the context and can't be separated from the Pragmatics of the individual encoding his intent to signal receiver. Conclusions as to what it means to formulate the same concept twice will generally emminate from whomever is arbitrating the proper parsing of the words at issue. An element of interpersonal power-dynamics can infuse itself into definitional debates. The editor can label something a tautology(or not a tautology) so as to better dismiss the opposition's position if it conflicts with his world view. Saying the same thing twice takes on varying nuances either fallacious, logically valid or poetic:

Rhetorical tautologies3 or tautological3 propositions are fallacious. Tautological2 expressions used for its stylistic effect in language verbosity, poetry and language redundancy aren't fallacious. Logical validity such as A or not A. It is a generic tautology not a fallacious rhetorical tautology.

Notes on Darwin[]

  • Darwin never said "reproductive success" , "random mutations", "differential survival" or "differential reproduction.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_29_2 Dawkins wrote "...Less obnoxious but still intellectually unhelpful is the loose and uncritical way in which amateur biologists apply selection at inappropriate levels in the hierarchy of life. “Survival of the fittest species, extinction of poorly adapted species” sounds superficially like true natural selection, but the apparent resemblance is positively misleading. As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is all about differential survival within species, not between them....."