Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: T Pagano <not.valid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:14:53 -0400
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odinoodin@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
weakness.
There are two types of Tautologies:
1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.
Some of the tautological formulations:
1. The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)
2. The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
(in logic: P or not P)
3. Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
tautology)
In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
is that they have near zero content. They lead nowhere.
Faithful darwinians usually define "fitness" and "survival" in terms
of each other and as such "survival of the fitest" is hopelessly
tautological AND content free. However while tHE gramatical structure
and formulation of tautologies make them logically true, this is
unrelated to whether such statements model real nature.
The fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest don't always
survive. Natural selection which turns out to be nothing more than
"differential survival" conjoined to "differential reproductive
success" has never been shown to drive random mutations in any
progressive, coherent direction. Natural selection inherently
conserves the variability that exists within the genome of some
population.
2. In rhetoric, a tautology is a redundant repetition of duplicate
meaning that is said more than once multiple times. So if NS is a
rhetorical tautology, it may be annoying, and it may be true or false,
but being a tautology in and of itself does not prove NS to be false.
The tautology argument... how stupid is that?
-loki
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: Iain
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: backspace
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: William Morse
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: hersheyh
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: Himself
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: John Harshman
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: chris thompson
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: Rusty Sites
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: bpuharic
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: odin
- Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- References:
- What is it with tautologies and NS?
- From: odin
- What is it with tautologies and NS?
- Prev by Date: Re: See Harshman humiliated
- Next by Date: Re: DARWINISMS explanations failrly inane and mundane and obvious
- Previous by thread: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- Next by thread: Re: What is it with tautologies and NS?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|