Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:48:08 GMT

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:06:43 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
<cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>
>"Stephen Harris" <cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:A6Ggd.36745$QJ3.27084@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:4181bedf.75193516@netnews.att.net...
>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:22:32 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
>>> <cyberguard1048-usenet@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:4180c3a7.71190262@netnews.att.net...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:04:19 -0400, Wolf Kirchmeir
>>>>> <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tautologies and Empirical Truth
>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a frank discussion with Wolf Kirchmeir yesterday concerning
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>> tautologies constitute empirical evidence he took occasion to remind
>>>>>>> me quite candidly that tautologies are always true. And the moral he
>>>>>>> drew from this was that tautological truths can't be empirical
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> empirical observations are always problematic and tautologies are
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then I got to pondering. It seemed a shame to have something that was
>>>>>>> always true and not be able to draw some useful information from it.
>>>>>>> Here was this beacon of universal truth, and we had no use for it. I
>>>>>>> understood that philosophers and scientists consider tautologies
>>>>>>> useless despite their universal truth. However, I decided that the
>>>>>>> final chapter on usefullness of the tautology had yet to be written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Always true" does not mean "universal truth."
>>>>>
>>>>> Aw, c'mon, Wolf, you're quibbling. If something is always true, it's
>>>>> true for all things everywhere at all times. If it's not true for all
>>>>> things everywhere, it's not true all the time. Totally irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards - Lester
>>>>
>>>>I am more sympathetic to Wolf's original point, which was something
>>>>which is logically/tautologically true does not have an empircal
>>>>(physical
>>>>reality) implication. Of course if the premise is true about reality then
>>>>the argument is called sound and then has an actual implication about
>>>>reality, because you are essentially just stating a fact about reality.
>>>
>>> So statements about reality which are true constitutes a sound
>>> argument? A mere statement doesn't constitute an argument at all.
>>>
>>> I can appreciate where your sympathies lie, Stephen, but where does
>>> your reason lie?
>>>
>>
>> Arguments are called valid if they are logically correct.
>> Arguments are called sound if they are both valid and have a true premise.
>> An argument consists of a premise and statements which follow to arrive at
>> a
>> conclusion.
>>
>> Rabbits are often white. (true premise)
>> Some rabbits are pets for children. (supporting premise)
>> Conclusion: Some pets for children are white.
>>
>>>>the argument is called sound and then has an actual implication about
>>>>reality, because you are essentially just stating a fact about reality.
>>>
>>
>> "Some pets for children are white." is a true statement about reality
>> because it follows from the true premise "Rabbits are often white
>> which is supported by "some rabbits are pets for children and leads
>> to the true conclusion Some pets for children are white which is
>> also a true statement about reality.
>>
>> Maybe you thought "argument" was meant to imply some type of dispute
>> which has nothing much to do with a statement. An argument is a series
>> of statements in logic without the implication of a dispute involved.
>>
>> My "reason lies" in being educated.
>>
>
>Tautological means circular.

Incorrect as a matter of definition. A tautology excludes no
possibility. A circular argument includes no possibility.

>> Rabbits are often white. (true premise)
>> Some rabbits are pets for children. (supporting premise)
>> Some pets for children are white.
>Some white pets for children are rabbits.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth
    ... >Arguments are called sound if they are both valid and have a true premise. ... >Some rabbits are pets for children. ... Some pets for children are white. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Tautologies and Empirical Truth
    ... > Arguments are called sound if they are both valid and have a true premise. ... > Some rabbits are pets for children. ... Some pets for children are white. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: The Pointy Stick Compendium Project
    ... just images of them, along with a description if you feel ... you forgot the rosewood and bronze pointy-stick depth gauge ... keep rabbits in hutches like that? ... Are they pets, or livestock? ...
    (rec.crafts.woodturning)
  • Re: Muslim fury over ham in prison halal curry
    ... Dog or cat no, for sentimental reasons as I have them as pets. ... I've eaten plenty of rabbits despite having ...
    (uk.politics.misc)