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)

[McCulloch]

Of course survival of the fittest is like a tautology. In the long run, on average, those who are most fit to survive will survive. The point is, that as a concept by itself, survival of the fittest is not very useful to explain anything. However, evolution needs two things.

1. Good but not perfect reproduction.
2. A means of selection of the variants in that reproductive process

Survival of the fittest is that means of selection in standard biological evolution.

[Furrowed Brow]

Fisherking. You’ve been reading again. Stop that now!

So yes you are right we need to be careful how we define survival of the fittest.

Let takes Newton’s Fg = Mm/d^2. The point to this equation is that is allows us to predict the movement of objects like planets.

Now evolutionary theory lacks a formulas like Newton's. The simple formula I offered was not a special definition as defined by Walter Remine, because it attempts (poorly) to be a generic definition. Now my formula may fail as a useful equation, but it draws out some of the important components of what goes into survival of the fittest, and it does so without resorting to a special definition. Basically Remine is talking about ad hoc definitions when he talks about special definitions. But notice the terms of the formula I offer are generic, not special or ad hoc.

To be true we cannot predict which species will survive best. Especially over any length of time, if only because stuff has the habit of changing in unpredictable ways. So I don't really hold out to much hope for an equation in evolutionary theory like we see for gravity. The best we can hope for is statistical analysis.

However there is more to survival of the fittest than tautology, as my simple formulation shows. For the concept survival of the fittest does include the concept of the gene, gene mutation, and environmental changes. These three facets of what is required to survive are empirical inputs into the concept.

If we take a universal view and ask questions about any and all species then sure they are the ones that are presently the survivors. So when we talk like that then we are being tautological. But what stops the concept of survival of the fittest being a tautology is that at any time any of these species may stop being survivors, or suddenly prove to be less efficient at surviving. Polar bears in a warming artic circle may be one example. Whether polar bears survive the next 100 years is not tautological question. And whether Polar bear DNA is able to reproduce and mutate at a fast enough rate to cope with changing environment is also not a tautological question. If polar bears survive over the long term, and the ice pack continues to shrink, then if I made the prediction that survivors will display new hunting traits, will probably be smaller due to eking out their survival on less rich food sources, and that they may well lose the white fur in favour of a coat that suits the new terrain better, then these predictions about the survival of the polar best fitted to their environment are not tautological.

Now If we knew enough about the polar gene sequence we might even be able to make predictions about which sections of theie DNA will need to mutate for the poor old polar bears to survive.

[Beto]

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)

I think wikipedia addresses the issue quite well. It states one can argue that "survival of the fittest" is tautological, only if one takes it out of natural selection context, and if one removes heritability from the equation.

[Fisherking]

Now evolutionary theory lacks a formulas like Newton's. The simple formula I offered was not a special definition as defined by Walter Remine, because it attempts (poorly) to be a generic definition. Now my formula may fail as a useful equation, but it draws out some of the important components of what goes into survival of the fittest, and it does so without resorting to a special definition.

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?

However there is more to survival of the fittest than tautology, as my simple formulation shows. For the concept survival of the fittest does include the concept of the gene, gene mutation, and environmental changes. These three facets of what is required to survive are empirical inputs into the concept...

...Polar bears in a warming artic circle may be one example. Whether polar bears survive the next 100 years is not tautological question. And whether Polar bear DNA is able to reproduce and mutate at a fast enough rate to cope with changing environment is also not a tautological question. If polar bears survive over the long term, and the ice pack continues to shrink, then if I made the prediction that survivors will display new hunting traits, will probably be smaller due to eking out their survival on less rich food sources, and that they may well lose the white fur in favour of a coat that suits the new terrain better, then these predictions about the survival of the polar best fitted to their environment are not tautological.

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")

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.

[Cathar1950]

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?

...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")

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 in one case fitness is defined by short fur and in the next case it is long fur, we then move into metaphysical definitions which are not falsifiable.

I don't see how it follows that it has become somehow metaphysical and unable to be falsified. It seems rather simple, if it survives and passed on offspring then it is fit. I suspect you are mixing meanings of fitness. It may not be the "best" fit but it is a surviving expression. That is the first quality before we can even start to make value judgements.

[Fisherking]

I don't see how it follows that it has become somehow metaphysical and unable to be falsified. It seems rather simple, if it survives and passed on offspring then it is fit.

It depends on how one defines fitness. You have defined fitness tautologically. Who will survive?--those that are fit. Who are fit?--those that survive. A metaphysical definition of fitness, contrary to a tautological definition or a special definition, is when fitness is defined as a combination of countless factors.

"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).

[Cathar1950]

I don't see how it follows that it has become somehow metaphysical and unable to be falsified. It seems rather simple, if it survives and passed on offspring then it is fit.

It depends on how one defines fitness. You have defined fitness tautologically. Who will survive?--those that are fit. Who are fit?--those that survive. A metaphysical definition of fitness, contrary to a tautological definition or a special definition, is when fitness is defined as a combination of countless factors.

"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).

infinitely complex relation to other organic beings and to external nature

No Sh*t?
Of course it is complex and there are many factors.
There are factors or reasons they survive or don't, including acidents and therefore it is not a "tautological definition" except that you have made it so by presenting a view about fitness that is an imaginary problem on your part.
You are over-stating the obvious as if they don't account for variables or factors.
One test is the power of explanation among other considerations.

[QED]

Fisherking, in a world run by God(s) I see no need for the "survivors" to be particularly fit (in terms of physical endowment) for survival. Their "fitness" might be anything at all that pleases the God(s). The Darwinian prediction would only seem to be verified in a world where what pleases the God(s) is just the ability to adapt to a constantly changing environment. Thus I repeat: It's the very possibility of miraculous ID that stops survival of the fittest being a tautology.

[Fisherking]

infinitely complex relation to other organic beings and to external nature

No Sh*t?
Of course it is complex and there are many factors.
There are factors or reasons they survive or don't, including acidents and therefore it is not a "tautological definition" except that you have made it so by presenting a view about fitness that is an imaginary problem on your part.

"Infinitely complex" is not a tautological definition, it is a metaphysical one.

One test is the power of explanation among other considerations.

The power of explanation is not a test I'm afraid. It might help to go back and reread the various definitions and and problems that arise with each. As ReMine stated in my previous post,

It did make his concept explanatory' the problem is it made his concept untestable

[Fisherking]

Fisherking, in a world run by God(s) I see no need for the "survivors" to be particularly fit (in terms of physical endowment) for survival. Their "fitness" might be anything at all that pleases the God(s). The Darwinian prediction would only seem to be verified in a world where what pleases the God(s) is just the ability to adapt to a constantly changing environment. Thus I repeat: It's the very possibility of miraculous ID that stops survival of the fittest being a tautology.

It may be anything that pleases God, but 'anything that pleases God' is a metaphysical definition for fitness. I repeat (I love to repeat what you repeat ), its 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.

In What part of evolution do you really disagree with?, you will remember the various definitions that are used for 'fitness' (ReMine) to make natural selection appear scientific, and how proponents of evolution shift between the various concepts in a debate about natural selection.

Fitness-- one-half a tautology [the other half being survival]

Fitness-- a special definition

Fitness-- the metaphysical, unmeasureable quantity

By using these definitions 'survival of the fittest' appears as:

T Tautology -- These are undeniably true in all cases, and measurable.
Problems: They are not explanatory and not testable.

SD Special Definition -- These are measurable, explanatory, testable, non-
tautologous, and true for a particular case. Problems: They are false
for the general case; they do not unify nature; they are many
disjointed, conflictiong theories masquerading as a single unified theory.

M Metaphysics -- These are non-tautologous, explanatory, and perhaps
true. Problems: They are unempirical, and untestable.

Alternatively, all references to fitness and adaptation may be abandoned. Natural selection then appears as:

L Lame -- These are perhaps scientific in every way. Problem: They do
not even try to explain adaptation.

The illusion is achieved by shifting between T, SD, M and L. In this way natural selection can appear to have all the good qualities one could want in science: empirical, measurable, explanatory, general, testable, non-tautologous, and true. This shift can happen rapidly during a book or lecture. Once we understand the principle, watching natural selection in actuion is like watching the three-shell game at the carnival. One never knows which of the walnut shells the pea will be under next. (ReMine, The Biotic Message, p107)

We run into scientific problems (different ones) depending on what definition is used.