| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | A '''tautology''' is a statement that is already true by definition, not because of any logical deduction<ref>http://www.apologetics.org/glossary.html</ref>. For instance, "All triangles have three sides" is an inherently true proposition, but it doesn't tell us anything new.
| + | The concept of '''tautology''' has two definitions, one philosophical, one rhetorical. |
| | + | |
| | + | ''Rhetorical tautology'' <ref>http://www.m-w.com</ref>is defined as "needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word". |
| | + | An example of a rhetorical tautology would be, for instance, a "godless atheist", or a "three-sided triangle" (as opposed to "all triangles have three sides", which is a definition). |
| | + | |
| | + | A ''philosophical tautology'' is <ref>http://www.dictionary.com</ref>"a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true", such as “A or not A.” |
| | + | For example, "This candidate will win or will not win.” |
| | + | Another example is "If it rains, it will rain." |
| | | | |
| − | The concept of the [[Survival of the fittest]] is a tautology if fitness is defined as the ability to survive.
| |
| | | | |
| | == References == | | == References == |
| | | | |
| | <references /> | | <references /> |