Talk:Tautology (rhetoric)/Archive 2008

Small baby puppy dogs

A BBC Breakfast presenter (Bill Turnbull?) once referred to "small baby puppy dogs", "puppies" would have sufficed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph

The third paragraph of the article seems rather incoherent. It's more like a collection of loosely related statements than a logically flowing paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.5.68 (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical tautologies

I think this needs a reference: "Mathematical equations, such as E = mc2, are not tautologies." Can anyone supply a reference? Otherwise it sounds like an opinion that needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeyn1 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have changed it slightly to 'scientific equations'. Strictly speaking, mathematical statements such as '2 + 2 = 4' are tautologies in the logical sense, as they are necessarily true; statements about the nature of the physical world (like 'the speed of light = 300,000 km/s') are generally not. 'E = mc2' is a special case, which I am not sufficiently qualified to judge - I'll leave it in for the time being, but I'd appreciate the input of a physicist on whether that equation is actually necessarily true, or just happens to be so. Terraxos (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "2+2=4" is not a tautology in the logical sense. In fact it's not even a validity in the logical sense (for example, it would be false if you interpreted "2" and "4" in the normal way, but "+" as meaning subtraction). What you can say if you like is that it's an analytic truth or logically necessary truth, a statement "true by virtue of its meaning", though even here you may be able find people who'll argue the point. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If Trovatore's proceeding argument is correct than tautologies can never exist. The statement "2+2=4" contains no variables. That's what I would point out if I was trying to argue that it isn't an example of a logical tautology since a logical tautology is a statement that is true for all possible interpretations and if there is only one possible correct interpretation the concept just doesn't apply. Arguing that symbols could potentially be misinterpreted in such a way that it would no longer be a tautology and that means it isn't one is an invalid point. The opposite argument is also invalid: that the symbols of a statement could potentially be misinterpreted to exclude conditions that are not tautological and that would make it a tautology (ex: X+2 = X-2 for misinterpreting "=" as ">" or "2" as "0"). A statement is either a tautology or it is not a tautology (or, if I was arguing Trovatore's point "Any statement with at least 2 possible interpretations is either a tautology or not"). The potential for misinterpretation of the statement has no effect on the matter. X=X is a well-known tautology for any correct interpretation of X but it is not a tautology for most incorrect interpretations of "=". Variables are the only symbols in logical statements that can be interpreted multiple ways. Flasher702 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say that X=X is a mathematical redundancy and not a tautology. The concept we have with somebody making tautological statement is the intent of deceiving to make somebody believe your point of view by formulating it in such a manner that it's truth is guaranteed. Nobody is really trying to be deceptive when saying X=X in formal mathematical logic. The issue is not the word tautology it is the concept that we have with it and it's various nuances. And formal math logic should in my view not even use the word tautology but coin a different term. For example we have the term Irreducible complexity or IC providing us with endless polemics between ID and Evo folks. But the word Interdependent encapsulates Behe's intent with term and instead of focusing on his intent Miller makes a fuss about Behe's definition which is not set in stone. The intent is the issue, what would be the intent with X=X and what survives, survives ? TongueSpeaker (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Townsville City

Is this considered a tautology? (Town-town town). I'd like to know before I perhaps edit it in. Zombequin (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's named after a man named Robert Towns, so I'd say no. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To argue that this is a tautology, firstly you'd have to accept that instead of it being a proper noun it's an argument, which it isn't. If you somehow proved the first point you'd secondly have to assert that 'town', 'ville' and 'city' are the same term expressed with different language, which is also a highly debatable point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.163.169 (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

AC/DC Current

In electronics and specifically calibration, 'AC/DC Current' isn't neccessarily a tautology. The letter 'C' means the Current in the circuit is either Alternating or Direct. The appended 'Current' means the current is constant rather than the voltage: The other example would be 'AC/DC Voltage' The 'C' means the same as before but now the Voltage is constant. hrf (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be a tautological expression and not propostion hence acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.176.174 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

However, if the topic is not clear, AC/DC could refer to a band. Hell, for a while, some were using it as a euphemism for bisexuality. Thus even if it is tautological, it is only so within its original discipline.

Izuko (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Difference between logical and rhetorical tautology

A logical tautology such as X=X is defined as something which is true by definition but a rhetorical tautology is defined as the deceitful formulation of a proposition such that its truth is guaranteed making the proposition Unfalsifiable. F = ma , E = mc2 can be falsified. Physics equations are therefore not tautologies. Nobody is trying to commit deception with 10 + 220 = 230. The intent a person has with a sentence such as for example "aromatic aroma" decides wether it is language redundancy, play on words, poetry, rhetorical tautology or a logical tautology. There is no language nor tautological formulations of anything without a motive. And such a motive will be constrained by the individuals intelligence, mental health and background knowledge. The motive behind "aromatic aroma" will decide in each specific case wether it is a rhetorical tautology or play-on-words. When Bush stumbles over his words resulting in language redundancy he wasn't trying to deceitfully guarantee the truth of his propositions. ⋮ Gould commits a rhetorical tautology here:

• The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy.
• S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age", Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.

Question: How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except by noting that the groups disappeared? ⋮ Gould, given his above average intelligence deceptively guaranteed the truth of his proposition:"...certain groups were extinction prone.." But the real reason for their extinction needs be derived independently elsewhere. Nothing is explained by stating that because they were "extinction prone" they disappeared, their disappearance implicitly implies that they were "extinction prone." ⋮ A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed. Consequently the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity. The statement "If you can't find something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is tautological. It is true, but conveys no useful information. As a physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board was full of bulls-eyes, could be called a "tautological" game. The player wouldn't lose. Any argument containing a tautological statement is thus flawed logically and must be considered erroneous. A rhetorical tautology is the deceitful formulation of a proposition in such a way that it is Unfalsifiable. "If you can't find something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" should be considered as tautological but not a rhetorical tautology because the intent of for example a mother trying to help her child find a toy isn't to deceive and thus the intent of a tautological statement would decide wether it is a

• Rhetorical tautology
• Logical tautology
• Tautological - depends on the intent of the person formulating a sentence.
• Language redundancy
• Poetic usage of words.

Some of the notable quotes said by, or attributed to, baseball player and manager Yogi Berra are considered humorous because they are, on the surface, tautological, including "It ain't over till it's over", "We made too many wrong mistakes" and "You can observe a lot by watching." These quotes should be considered as improvised poetry and not as rhetorical tautologies because of the light hearted intent Berra had with it. He wasn't specifically trying to deceive like Gould did. A separate Wikia page such as Language Redundancy should specifically deal with this. TongueSpeaker (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss your essay in any detail; I'm not sure why you posted it, since it doesn't seem to be proposing (or opposing) any particular change in the article, and the small change you just made could have been discussed much more concisely.

But I would like to address a small (almost tangential) error in the above: Something like x=x is not in fact a logical tautology, at least in the most usual precise sense of the term. It's what's called a logical validity; that is, something that can be proved in first-order logic without using any axioms. A logical tautology is something like "p or not p"; that is, something that can be proved in the more restrictive propositional calculus without using any axioms. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The thrust of my argument is that the intent constrained by the individuals background knowledge, intellect and mental health determines just how tautological a tautology really is. The semantics of these terms are tripping us up. We have formal mathematical set theory in which the intent by mathematicians such isn't to be a clown and with deceit try and sneak in A = A into equations. But in rhetoric where materialists and YEC like me try to convince the people who read these posts of our world view there certainly are examples of trying to deceive people. We should thus need to define the usage of the word *tautology* as used in formal math set theory and in rhetorical speech. I would propose that logical tautology such as A=A fall under the general heading rhetorical tautology. And mathematical logical tautology be used in formal set theory.

The intent with a person stating X=X would determine just how tautological it really is. If you are giving a class on logic trying to show what is a logical validity then I agree with your comments but if the intent was to deceive such as a mentally ill person walking around say a chicken is a chicken, what survives, survives or horses = horses then the degree of tautologicalness must be considered. As a YEC I am projecting my world view that there can't be any language without a motive or will. If your cat walked over the keyboard typing :"Survival of the fittest" the sentence wouldn't be a tautology because the cat had no intent. We must know who said SoF within the constraints background information. What background information does a cat have? We must evaluate everything you say from the perspective that you believe your motives and emotions are generated by the bouncing atoms in your head, which means we can't believe a word you say because if the atoms bounce in a different direction you might argue that you are a boiled egg.TongueSpeaker (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I got my point across to you. The point is that the word tautology as used in mathematical logic has a precise technical meaning that is only somewhat related to the usage in the tautology (rhetoric) article. For the logic meaning, there aren't any degrees of tautologicalness and there's no "intent" to worry about; a proposition is or is not a tautology, period, and you can check mechanically whether it is or not, just by writing out the truth table.

My point is completely unrelated to your discussion above, which I have no interst in engaging. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your piont: You have specific concept in math logic for which you use the symbol string 'tautology', my point is that we should consider using another word or term such as mathematical redundancy and leave the symbol string 'tautology' to mean the deceitful formulation of a world view such that it's truth is guaranteed. This is not the case generally in mathematical logic but is the case in evolutionary theory where people try to obscure their belief that monkeys gave birth to humans.TongueSpeaker (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain it as follows: You pick up a piece of paper with X=X written on it but don't know who wrote it. Is this 'X=X' a tautology? Anybody could have written it even a cat kicking over an ink pot. There is no language nor tautologies without a motive.

If it was an evil evolutionist using X=X as code language for "what survives, survives and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human" then it is a rhetorical tautology and not a logical tautology.

The intent was to deceptively guarantee the truth of the proposition. Language redundancy used in the poetic sense are not usually associated with deliberate deceit. tautology, natural selection, fitness are not concepts but symbol strings which conscious beings use to encrypt their specific intent with. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PerryMarshall TongueSpeaker (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't his point that this article and the Tautology (Logic) article do not discuss what they claim to discuss? In other words, the logic article talks about rhetoric and vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.215.105 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tautology - a shockingly bad article

The article states:

"A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not a game. Mathematical equations, such as E = mc2, are not tautologies. The terms on both sides of the equation are defined elsewhere independently. The equal sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather equal to, thus establishing an equivalence. Acceleration and mass independently don't equal force but their product MA as derived by Newton does, hence the equation F=MA isn't a tautology."

• 1) Well, duuuh. A tautological argument is a kind of argument - an argument of equivalence. If A=A then that is a kind of rhetorical argument. Notice how it is fundamentally symbolically different from the equation "e=mc squared". If I say "A duck is a duck" then that may be a tautology, but that does not reduce its validity as an argument.

If you were to say "a duck is a duck" and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human, then it would be a rhetorical tautology - it depends on what your intent is with duck=duck. TongueSpeaker (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be a non sequitur that somehow involved a tautology... I don't think that makes it a "tautological argument". Also, intent is irrelevant. Also, I'd like to see an example of formal logical instruction that names tautology as a type of fallacious argument because I don't think it's considered one. I think people here are just trying to give a new name to a crudely defined range special cases of the circular logic fallacy. Also, "a duck is a duck" is a logical tautology (and arguably not a rhetorical tautology at all since it's just a simple redundancy) and therefore not a good example of a rhetorical tautology. "A duck's feathered wing is covered with plumage." is a rhetorical tautology. "A duck cannot give birth to a bear because it is a duck." is circular logic and contains the statement "a duck is a duck". It also happens to be a perfectly fallacious argument that yields a true assertion all of which has nothing to do with the definition of rhetorical tautology which is my point exactly. Intent, truth of assertion, and logical integrity are all irrelevant to the the definiton of rhetorical tautology. Flasher702 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• 2) This article is about rhetorical tautologies, yet logical (mathematical) equations are being used to prove the point. This is totally inconsistent. "e=mc squared" has nothing to do with rhetorical tautologies, "e=mc squared" is a scientific fact derived from a mathematical equation backed up by empirical data. The statement "e=mc squared" has absolutely no relevance to the tautological statement "a duck is a duck" because the former is a logical equation backed up by data while the latter is a matter of language, intonation and word stress. The two concepts are being cruelly abused here.

The article is about the concept we have with the symbol string 'tautology' not the symbol string itself, there are a multitude of concepts such as Rhetorical tautology, Logical tautology, Language redundancy , verbosity and UnfalsifiabilityTongueSpeaker (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• 3) Ok, they may be formally "tautological", but the word repetitious would much better suffice: The many so-called examples of tautology in "Repetitions of meaning in mixed-language phrases" are totally useless. Naming protocols do not a rhetorical tautology make, especially when two or more languages are involved. Rhetoric is about argument, not making lists.

• 4) This article does absolutely nothing to really advance the concept of the tautological argument in language. It is one of the worst wikipedia articles I have ever read. Unless it is being purposely sarcastic I totally fail to see the point of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duprie37 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tautological expressions and propositions

The tautological *expression* ("an unmarried bachelor") contains a redundant word ("unmarried"), but has meaning and can be used to form a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This proposition is *not* a tautology because the intent isn't to deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily language verbosity. The tautological *proposition* ("all bachelors are unmarried") stated in a class on formal logic theory on the other hand, gives us no information that is not already contained in the definition of the word "bachelor". The intent a person has with unmarried bachelor would determine whether it is a tautology or language verbosity. TongueSpeaker (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing withing the meaning of tautology that requires a desire to decieve. Ergo, just because a phrase wasn't intended to decieve doesn't mean it isn't a tautolagous.86.31.48.120 (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple meanings for the word tautology. Tautological expressions the idea isn't to deceive but a tautological proposition the intent by the user could be to deceive if he knows that his argument is fallacious. Only people can deceive and deception via tautologies intermixed with the terms evolution, natural selection, adaptation is their means of doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.15.14.5 (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So you agree then, that whether or not a statement is intended decieve, has nothing to do with whether it is tautologous or not. A statement may be a tautology (or not). The intent the "user" may to decieve (or not). However, those two aspects are totally independant from each other.

Secondly "Only people can decieve" isn't even remotely true - there are (for instance) many many examples of animals that decieve - see Milk snake. Also, you seem to imply that tautologies are peoples only means of deception, which is clearly nonsense. Neither is it true (as you imply) that tautologies are peoples only means of deception (though ironically, your claim that people decieve and deception is their means of doing it, is in fact tautologous)

And finally come back to your not-so-secret agenda - anti-evolution POV pushing. Take it elsewhere, this isnt the place for this argument. 82.3.89.48 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, can someone who is better at constructing English than I am edit this section of the article (or just remove it) as it stands it's complete and utter gibberish. (and essentially untrue too).86.31.48.120 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"unmarried bachelor" and pragmatics

I want to add the following to the article but there is a dispute concerning it please resolve:

The Pragmatics or context with 'unmarried bachelor' by the user would determine whether it is a tautology or language verbosity. In an academic setting such as a peer reviewed journal propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an independent explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a setting would be a tautological proposition and unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech is acceptable because of the pragmatics with it. The dividing line between a tautological proposition and expression is pragmatics.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.48.160 (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(I moved this to its proper place) If you can find reliable sources that talk about this then and only then is it appropriate. You can't just add your opinion about things. Plus you don't really understand the issue of pragmatics or anything else in English.--Woland (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Intent with random, success, selection and tautology

Put a bunch of marbles in a bag. Pick one out without looking at it. Would this be a random selection or a selection at random ? It would be a selection at random but the intent is that consciousness is involved. Usually the symbol string "random" is not associated with consciousness.

• There was a selection of rocks on the mountain after the earthquake.

The mountain had no intent to assemble an assortment or selection of rocks, the symbol string selection in this case isn't associated with consciousness.

• The mountaineers assembled a selection of rocks to form a camp.

The symbol string selection implies consciousness. And thus the intent behind the formulation of a sentence will determine whether it is a tautology or language verbosity.

• "I went out to get the mail wearing only my slippers; I succeeded in slipping on the ice and breaking my nose."

Succeeded here is used rhetorically, the person didn't really have the actual intent of breaking his nose because success is defined as reaching a predetermined goal. And the question is what is the concept that we wish to convey with the symbol string tautology? TongueSpeaker (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly - what does this have to to with tautology? Secondly - why do you keep using the phrase "symbol string", if you mean "word" say "word", saying "symbol string" just makes you sound like pretentious nut. Thirdly, the word "selection" does not imply consciousness at all, it can (and often does) also mean "a group from which a choice may be made". Finally - So was this basically a [very very] long winded way of saying "words can have more than one meaning"? If so - "Well duh!"86.31.48.120 (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The concept surrounding a "symbol string" is from this site http://www.raherrmann.com , nothing to do with being pretentious. a group from which a choice may be made - who made the choice?

What choice? What are you talking about? Nobody made a choice, thats the whole point. Just because there is a "selection from which a choice may be made" doesn't mean there was an actual choice made. A 'selection' of stones or chocolates or whatever, could sit there for all eternity with no-one making a choice from them - they would still be 'a selection'. I don't see why you are having such difficulty understanding this very simple concept. Also, that website is the product of an ID spouting nut-job and is complete and utter gibberish. Outside of the world of computer programming, "symbol string" is meaningless. The English language has a far better word for words, it's "word", use it. 82.3.89.48 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tautology squared

The word 'twice" in the first sentence is tautological wgoetsch (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)