Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tautology"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
b.an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.” | b.an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.” | ||
Another example is "If it rains, it will rain." | Another example is "If it rains, it will rain." | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Survival of the fittest" is not a tautology, but a description of a specific process that may be found to be true or untrue via investigation. Tautology is irrelevant here. | ||
--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 22:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT) | --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 22:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:17, April 16, 2007
"Tautology" has two definitions, one philosophical, one rhetorical. The current article confounds the two definitions.
From Miriam-Webster, rhetorical tautology is defined as "needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word".
The triangle example given is not a tautology, but a definition. 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".
From Dictionary.com, a philosophical tautology is: a.a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.” b.an instance of such a form, as “This candidate will win or will not win.” Another example is "If it rains, it will rain."
"Survival of the fittest" is not a tautology, but a description of a specific process that may be found to be true or untrue via investigation. Tautology is irrelevant here.