Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tautology"
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
--[[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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Never mind, I did the edit, anyone who wishes to clean it up a little is welcome.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:08, 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.
Perhaps someone could edit the user page to reflect this. I would, but given my reputation...
--PalMDtalk 22:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Never mind, I did the edit, anyone who wishes to clean it up a little is welcome.--PalMDtalk 14:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)