What's the big deal with tautologies?

[QED]

The myth of evolution is easily falsified by cognitive scientists, since it is nothing but a tautology consisting of circular reasoning within more circular reasoning.

The Theory of Evolution is an unfalsifiable Tautological Theory, akin to UFO's and their intergalactic proctologists.

It sounds like you are mixing the theory of evolution up with the tautology of natural selection.

Often I hear natural selection being put down by calling it a tautology. I suspect the general idea is to attempt to render "survival of the fittest" meaningless by this accusation.

As far as I'm aware Tautology gets a bad name through being a stylistic transgression, by introducing redundancy into a statement, i.e. stating the same thing twice like Windows 2000 - based on NT Technology (New Technology Technology). Now survival of the fittest may be describing an obvious consequence to most people, but dropping either the verb or the subject would rather suggest that neither were redundant. Perhaps the whole expression is thought to be redundant in that it states the obvious? But what about: misery of the oppressed, joy of the blessed, extermination of the executed. Are these consequences devoid of all meaning too?

What am I missing? (asked with a genuine 50/50 expectation of being put right)

[QED]

It's the very possibility of miraculous ID that stops survival of the fittest being a tautology.

--- because it ceases to be a tautological defintion and becomes a metaphysical one.

No, it becomes testable: present some creature who's fitness can only be understood as having some arbitrary appeal to the God(s) and you might have a scientific case for ID.

"Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relation to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offsping. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection.."(Darwin, Origin of Species, p115, my italics)

We cannot possibly investigate "infinitely complex relations" between an organism and its environment. Darwin repeats this phrase often in his writings. He felt the idea of infinite steps and complexity strengthened his argument. It did make his concept explanatory' the problem is it made his concept untestable.(ReMine, The Biotic Message, p. 103).

Total nonsense. His simple concept is perfectly modelable and testable using Genetic Algorithms.

[Fisherking]

"Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relation to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offsping. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection.."(Darwin, Origin of Species, p115, my italics)

We cannot possibly investigate "infinitely complex relations" between an organism and its environment. Darwin repeats this phrase often in his writings. He felt the idea of infinite steps and complexity strengthened his argument. It did make his concept explanatory' the problem is it made his concept untestable.(ReMine, The Biotic Message, p. 103).

Total nonsense. His simple concept is perfectly modelable and testable using Genetic Algorithms.

From what I have gathered from genetic algorithms, fitness is not all encompassing statements like, "infinitely complex relations", "any variation, however slight", "whatever cause", "any degree profitable", "generally be inherited". Maybe it would help to explain what definition of fitness genetic algorithms use. I suspect we will find that algorithms are not modeling infinitely complex relationships and deal with special or tautological definitions of fitness, both with their own scientific problems.

[Furrowed Brow]

It seems to me that whatever values we wanted to put into the equation would either have to be the same every time we measured them or they would be different (more than likely). If they were different and we tried to give a general definition of fitness, fitness would be a different value every time resulting in a 'special definition' every time.... wouldn't it?

Here’s an equation 4x = y. The value of y changes every time we change the value of x. However the form of the equation remains constant. Here are some different equations.

3x = y
x + z = y
x^n + y^n = y^n
F = Ma
E =Mc^2

Now if we had a selection of forms of definition - a selection of equations - which we interchanged and used in an ad hoc way to suit our purposes - then that would be a special definition. This should not be confused with a different result from an equation applied consistently.

The lesson applies to my (or any attempt) to provide a generic definition of “fitness“. The definition will not be special in Remine’s sense if the form of the equation remains the same. The result of a consistent equation becomes the measure of “fitness”

I agree, that is because special definitions for fitness have been given. In the examples given, the special definitions of fitness are:

1. reproduction and mutational rates ("whether Polar bear DNA is able to reproduce and mutate at a fast enough rate to cope with changing environment")

2. hunting traits ("survivors will display new hunting traits")

3. coat type (" they may well lose the white fur in favour of a coat that suits the new terrain better")

Lets look again at the generic definition I offered

Survival fitness quotient = (Existing DNA + mutation) * environmental changes / established environment

Your point 1 is covered by this defintion/equation.

Your point 2 concerns changes in behaviour. But what engenders changes in behavioiur? Either a genetic mutation affect morphology and engenders or reinforces new behaviour, or environment changes, thus the organisms is forced to behave differently. Again your point 2 is subsumed by the generic definition. So too 3.

We could make a hundred more predictions on factors (environmental or otherwise) we think would affect polar bear fitness and still not be able to falsify natural selection. If the three factors above proved to be irrelevant to survival would natural selection be falsified? -- Of course not. Coat type may turn out to be the only factor involved in whether or not the polar bear survives. For a penguin in the same environment, fitness might be determined by toe length. If fitness is defined by short fur for better aerodynamics and also long fur to keep them warm, we then move into metaphysical definitions of fitness that are not falsifiable.

OK. Fur coat for polar bears and toe length for Penguins. These are variables. I picked out the polar bears white fur. But as you imply nature might pick out something else.

Thus we come back to a basic generic position, we measure the polar bear reproductive rates, the mutation rate, the changes in the environment etc, and come up with a figure that describes the ability of the polar bear to survive, beyond x number of generations.

[Cathar1950]

"Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relation to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offsping. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection.."(Darwin, Origin of Species, p115, my italics)

We cannot possibly investigate "infinitely complex relations" between an organism and its environment. Darwin repeats this phrase often in his writings. He felt the idea of infinite steps and complexity strengthened his argument. It did make his concept explanatory' the problem is it made his concept untestable.(ReMine, The Biotic Message, p. 103).

Total nonsense. His simple concept is perfectly modelable and testable using Genetic Algorithms.

From what I have gathered from genetic algorithms, fitness is not all encompassing statements like, "infinitely complex relations", "any variation, however slight", "whatever cause", "any degree profitable", "generally be inherited". Maybe it would help to explain what definition of fitness genetic algorithms use. I suspect we will find that algorithms are not modeling infinitely complex relationships and deal with special or tautological definitions of fitness, both with their own scientific problems.

How would explaining help you? I suspect you are making rather sophomoric problems as you play with words that by nature have many meanings and in some cases special meanings.
How big would you paper need to be to just list "infinitely complex relations", provided you used both sides of the paper?
I don't know how we could model infinite variables in any algorithm without just observing the actual occasion. Models are limited by their nature to make the complex simple enough to be useful.
Reality is always going to out distance our understandings and models.
It seems more likely that those that claim absolutes are guilty of tautological thinking.

[QED]

From what I have gathered from genetic algorithms, fitness is not all encompassing statements like,

I don't understand why everything in your list of "all encompassing statements" that follows is to be regarded as fitness Perhaps you only meant to identify each as having some role to play in natural selection? Whether or not the concept is considered to be instantiated in biological or computational surroundings, the "offensive" statements you've highlighted are all perfectly meaningful in the context Darwin uses them.

"infinitely complex relations"

Actual or effective infinity is non-essential in any way other than in emphasising the non-trivial interraltions that exist in real biotic environments. "Toy universes" encompassed by the resources of a personal computer can sustain a finite but effectively boundless space of possibilities for evolutionary algorithms, a fact that doesn't render them any less demonstrable or testable.

"any variation, however slight", "whatever cause", "any degree profitable", "generally be inherited".

I can see a very naive level at which a criticism of these statements could be made, and that is if we were to isolate them from each other and then consider their independent operatinal values. But they are part of a connected whole, a general concept that can be repeatedly modelled in any suitable information system.

Maybe it would help to explain what definition of fitness genetic algorithms use. I suspect we will find that algorithms are not modeling infinitely complex relationships and deal with special or tautological definitions of fitness, both with their own scientific problems.

[Fisherking]

Thus we come back to a basic generic position, we measure the polar bear reproductive rates, the mutation rate, the changes in the environment etc, and come up with a figure that describes the ability of the polar bear to survive, beyond x number of generations.

Now we have come full circle and we still have to answer the question of which polar bears would suvive. Got a guess?

[Furrowed Brow]

Thus we come back to a basic generic position, we measure the polar bear reproductive rates, the mutation rate, the changes in the environment etc, and come up with a figure that describes the ability of the polar bear to survive, beyond x number of generations.

Now we have come full circle and we still have to answer the question of which polar bears would suvive. Got a guess?

Yeah I can guess . And then it is possible to make an educated guess , and with closer study we might be able to reduce the amount of guesswork. The problems here are not a problem with evolution theory, but the complexity of the problem due to the number of variables. Which shows that fitness is not a tautology - because the eventual answer depends on empirical data.

However, if the polar ice continues to recedes at current rates, the polar will not be able to adapt. It will go extinct. That would be the safest estimate - I guess.

[Assent]

I believe that the actual quote was not about an abstract "fitness," but stated that those most likely to survive would be those most adaptable to change. Now, adaptation can be quantified; the massive changes that mankind has wrought upon Earth has given us more than enough test cases. For an example: pigeons.

Obviously, some pigeon species have adapted to live in human cities. Others, such as the passenger pigeon could not withstand the massive hunting efforts and habitat destruction, and have gone extinct. Kind? No. Moral? Probably not. Natural selection at work via human intervention? Yes. Another example would be the difference between current sperm whale and humpback whale populations, both of which were popular at the height of the whaling industry.

Thus, our first task is to determine any possible future changes to an environment. Our second task is to determine what, if anything, needs to be changed in the organisms that inhabit that environment. Our final task is to determine whether or not the organisms will be capable of making this change in order to survive in their changed environment. If these three tasks can be performed, then natural selection can be observed.

Also, this mention of tautology reminds me of a quote from a Heinlein book, Tunnel in the Sky. It goes a little something like this: "All logic is merely a form of tautology...you never learn anything you didn't already know." Now, I know this is a bit misleading. After all, the real point of logic is not to explain anything to yourself, but to convince others to come to your way of thinking.[/url]