Tautology, Anti-Tautology, and role of these in causation

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 545
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
Tautology is crucial in logical structure. For example, any logical link between words must already exist in one of those words, if it is to be true by tautology.

For example, saying "Cats are animals" is only true if "animals" by definition already include cats.

So if word "animals" by its own definition includes "cats, dogs, rabbits", then saying that cats are animals is true by tautology, and cannot be false.

Tautology from dictionary:
"a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
"all logical propositions are reducible to either tautologies or contradictions""

Tautology in simple terms means saying same thing twice in different forms. It is similar to law of identity.

But there is also anti-tautology, or something which is false by tautology.
For example, the claim "Humans are animals". 
If word "animals" is defined in such a way to exclude humans in its definition, then saying that humans are animals is false by tautology.

Tautology in causation also works in same way.
Causation is defined as "If one thing exists, then the other thing must exist as its result".

For example, the claim "CO2 causes global warming" can only be true by tautology if definition of CO2 or global warming already includes this causation. And it can include this causation in 3 ways:
1. If main definition includes it (which is then a truism),
2. If it indirectly includes it (in definition of other words used in main definition),
3. If later expanded agreed definition includes it, directly or indirectly.

Tautology depends on how well defined the word is. Not all definitions are equally good and not all definitions include all there is to include. But if, in debate, definitions are agreed upon, then claim is usually true by tautology or false by tautology. There is usually no 3rd option, because definitions either support the claim or they dont. But in case definition is incomplete, there is more space to debate, but this then requires expanding existing definitions. In case of CO2, its main definition would have to be expanded to include causation of global warming, usually done through observation evidence to connect causation to CO2, making them impossible to separate.

The anti tautology can also be applied to causation. For example, definition of CO2 doesnt limit CO2 to Earth, and CO2 which is far away from Earth doesnt cause any global warming on Earth by definition, thus not all CO2 causes global warming.

Sure, this could be considered as focusing too much on details in definitions, but it does help if there are no other ways to attack or defend the topic.
#2
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,221
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Sure, this could be considered as focusing too much on details in definitions, but it does help if there are no other ways to attack or defend the topic.
Sticking to the definition makes the statement more accurate.
Topic's author
#3
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 545
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
If you want some philosophical anti tautology example, here it is:

If there is a system of proof for determining what exists and what doesnt exist, then such a system itself must exist. But since such system determines what exists, then such system also must be able to determine its own existence. Such system is false by tautology, because it violates law of identity and own definition, as definition of such a system cannot include more than that system itself. Definition of such a system cannot include the part where system determines if such system exists, because then the definition of a word would use the word it tries to define in the definition of that word.

In math terms:

A = determines that A is in category of "exist"

This claim cannot be true, because if it was true, it would violate law of identity, as here, definition of A includes A but also includes more than A, which is impossible, because then A isnt A. Simply, A in one place is different(greater) than A in other place.

It is like saying "Cats are defined as cats and dogs". It is an impossible definition, because then the definition of cats includes cats and includes more than cats, a logical absurd where cats =/= cats.
Topic's author
#4
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 545
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
Sticking to the definition makes the statement more accurate.
Well, definitions are the basis upon which arguments are built.
#5
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,221
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It is like saying "Cats are defined as cats and dogs". It is an impossible definition, because then the definition of cats includes cats and includes more than cats, a logical absurd where cats =/= cats.
Cats can be defined as animals that would include dogs which are also animals.
Topic's author
#6
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 545
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
Cats can be defined as animals that would include dogs which are also animals.
Definition of cats cannot just be "animals". Word "animals" already includes "cats, dogs, rabbits...ect.

If cats were defined as "animals", then cats would be cats, dogs, rabbits...ect.

There is a difference between saying
1. Cats are animals
and
2. Definition of cats is "animals"

The 2 means all animals are cats.
#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,622
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Shila

My cat is scratching your profile pic.
#8
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,622
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheGreatSunGod

You should read the book "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard. I think it would be helpful for you.
#9
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,221
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Definition of cats cannot just be "animals". Word "animals" already includes "cats, dogs, rabbits...ect.

If cats were defined as "animals", then cats would be cats, dogs, rabbits...ect.

There is a difference between saying
1. Cats are animals
and
2. Definition of cats is "animals"

The 2 means all animals are cats.

Yes, a cat is defined as a type of animal. More specifically, it's a small, domesticated carnivorous mammal belonging to the family Felidae. The scientific name for the domestic cat is Felis catus. Cats are also known as house cats or domestic cats.


Topic's author
#10
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 545
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
You should read the book "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard. I think it would be helpful for you.
Whats that book even about?
Topic's author
#11
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 545
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
Yes, a cat is defined as a type of animal.
Well, thats now a different definition from just "animals".

#12
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,622
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheGreatSunGod

It is the basis of Scientology.
Topic's author
#13
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 545
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
I always liked the extreme.
#14
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,221
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Yes, a cat is defined as a type of animal.
Well, thats now a different definition from just "animals"

What is the literal meaning of animal?
Latin anima means “breath” or “soul,” and animalis, the adjective that comes from it, means “having breath or soul.” An animal such as a cat or dog can be seen to breathe. Plants breathe too, by taking in certain gases from the atmosphere and releasing others.

#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,054
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If one just said,

She's A Cat,

And left it at that..

One might require, 

For reference

A tautological inference.

Like Pussy.
 

Topic's author
#16
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 545
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Like Pussy.
I do like pussy.

#17
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,365
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
@TheGreatSunGod
Like Pussy.

..." These soft silver tufts—as well as the plant itself—are named for their resemblance to tiny cats’ paws, and they feel so much like fur that young children often wonder if they are animals instead of plants. "


I remmember in 80's being at an outside neighbor hood park that they would show free movies. So it was mostly familys and  younger people.

This night should the movie with Julie Andrews..' The Sound of Music ' And there is a scene where the children of the family are on the stairs,  and its the father or the uncle visiting, and he leans over and says to the children...' come here my little pussies '...

So I hear a ..Gasping!... sound of what sounds to me like mostly young girls in the crowd.  I dont think they were familiar with the differrence slang/lingo used in past days or current in Britain if not elsewhere in Europe. Far as I know using words for pussies for the children is just a British culture thing. I dunno
Topic's author
#18
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 545
3
3
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
3
5
-->
@ebuc
he leans over and says to the children...' come here my little pussies '...
Some strange movies you are watching.
#19
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,221
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
If one just said, 

She's A Cat,

And left it at that..

One might require, 

For reference

A tautological inference.

Like Pussy.
That would imply a woman as well.
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,054
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
That would imply a woman as well.

More tautology required then.
#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,054
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Hmmmmmmmmm.

Never heard children referred to as pussies, over here in the UK.

But yes, it's become a very provocative word.
#22
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,365
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Hmmmmmmmmm. Never heard children referred to as pussies, over here in the UK.

It was a differrent time and differrent culture, differrent slang/lingo etc

60 years ago the movie came out on the big screen. 1965

Most cars only had brake shoes then.  Most all cars used nylon tires, not the ones common today, the steel belted tires were still being developed, and not on cars yet except maybe testing on stater trooper cars

Head rests were not required in cars for whiplash of the neck 

I lady reviewing the movie below, so not whole movie. I looked for when the father or uncle is greeting the kids and says come here my little pussies, but dont see it.

Ahh, I found a clip of the uncle calling the kids pussies, tho it must of been twice in the movies, cause this below I forgot about. 



Heres the thing, apparrently nobody around these days who also remmeber the uncle when he first arrives calling over to the kids in house come here my little pussies.

#23
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,221
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
That would imply a woman as well.

More tautology required then.
Bring it on.
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,054
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Perhaps edited out these days.

Like Guy Gibson's Dog.
#25
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,221
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Hmmmmmmmmm.

Never heard children referred to as pussies, over here in the UK.

But yes, it's become a very provocative word.
The British are cutting back on slangs to improve their English.