My post does not claim that "It is raining" is a tautology. It claims that "It is
raining or it is not raining" is a tautology. Of course "It is
raining" is not a tautology but dependent for its truth upon weather conditions.
Reread my post. A tautology cannot be false but the "cannot" is
a logical cannot. There may be some things that cannot be false because of the facts.
Perhaps the comment about capitalism's ultimate demise is
arguably of that sort. The distinction we are discussing here though is the subject of
some philosophical debate. Authors such as Quine question
the distinction. Anything can be made tautologous he claims.
I think some leftists are experts at starting theoretical discussions that seem to
turn on the facts but soon it is clear
that the doctrines are part of a core theoretical stance that is not going to accept
any facts as refuting. WHat seems to be contrary to the
theory will turn out to be from ministrieses of misinformation, running dogs of
ministries of misinformation and so on,.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Rod Hay wrote:
> Ken. This is the same mistake that Carrol made in the first place. "It is raining"
>is not be a tautology. It can be true. Or it can be false.
> A tautology cannot be false. If you have another definition of a tautology, please
>give me a reference.
>
> Rod
>
> Ken Hanly wrote:
>
> > This is all mixed up, mostly incorrect. Some types of tautology are true because
>of definitions. The types of tautologies recognised by
> > philosophers such as Kant. "All bachelors are unmarried" As Kant puts it the
>predicate "unmarried" is included in the definition of
> > "bachelor". One could say that these sorts of statements are in a sense true by
>definition. However a tautology such as "It is raining or
> > it is not raining" is not true by definition in any straightforward way. It is
>true because of the manner in which the truth functional
> > operators
> > "not" and "or " work to form compound propositions. The fact that something you
>write down is a tautology (or a contradiction) does not
> > relieve one of any burden of proof. Writing down "It is raining or it is not
>raining" does not prove it is a tautology and the fact that
> > something is true does not show that it is a tautology. One has to prove that it
>is a tautology. For example by constructing a truth
> > table. A tautuology is not simply true. It is necessarily true or true for formal
>reasons not because of empirical facts.
> > Cheers, Ken Hanly
> >
> > Rod Hay wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, of course, Charles.
> > >
> > > Rod
> > >
> > > Charles Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/30/00 01:25PM >>>
> > > > After thinking better of my sarcastic tone to Carrol's message. Let me
> > > > explain.
> > > >
> > > > A tautology is a statement that is true by definition. That is, it is
> > > > always true.
> > > >
> > > > A = A is a tautology.
> > > >
> > > > A = B is not a tautology. That is, it might be false.
> > > >
> > > > Similarly all true statements are not tautologies. I.e., A = B might be
> > > > true.
> > > >
> > > > __________
> > > >
> > > > CB: Sorry, couldn't help saying this since we are in a logical vein. You mean
>"not all true statements are tautologies" , I believe.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with your post, though.
> > > >
> > > > _________
> > > >
> > > > If all statements were tautologies, math and logic would be very easy.
> > > > Anything you write down would be true. No need to prove anything.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rod Hay
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > The History of Economic Thought Archive
> > > http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
> > > Batoche Books
> > > http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
> > > 52 Eby Street South
> > > Kitchener, Ontario
> > > N2G 3L1
> > > Canada
>
> --
> Rod Hay
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The History of Economic Thought Archive
> http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
> Batoche Books
> http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
> 52 Eby Street South
> Kitchener, Ontario
> N2G 3L1
> Canada
