The Hammer With No Hammerness

[thinkbyproxy]

wait...did i just here jeff say something can both be true and false....i'd like an example of something both true and false at the same time and in the same sense

[sixtiksix]

What did I miss?

[OsyenVyeter]

Real life use for a tautology: S = Son. F = Father. M= Mother. Since S is acquired through the means of "F+M" it would of course follow logic that S cannot be F (in other words "F is ~S") since in order to get S you need F in the first place. Now whats the real life application? Explaining this to a christian in a theological debate.

(jesus cannot be his own dad)

If anyone tries to use a temporal paradox of "back to the future" so help me Ill smack ya.

[rayogram2]

I know you're not one for philosophy anymore, but seeing as this video concerns pragmatism, I'm wondering what your opinions on Richard Rorty are.

[jessemaurais]

I'm going to agree with you but go on to say something which you might also not agree with, concerning the laws of logic.

I'm going to say that they are metaphysical propositions. The statement "A proposition is either true or false but not both true and false at the same time" cannot be proved within the system of logic which at the same time assumes it, without begging the question. Moreover our contention that such statements are apt descriptions of the world is non-logical, yet pragmatic.

[azrienoch]

@jessemaurais I agree with that.

[comradesteve1990]

I wish i could have a conversation with this guy in real life.

[BoStevoD]

A useless tautology is one that is obvious, whereas a useful tautology allows us to bring out the implications of the structure of a model and its implications. It is far from trivial. Natural selection is itself a tautology, but a useful one at that.

[wilfredthebold]

@BoStevoD Natural selection would be a tautology if it were impossible for advantageous traits to not be inherited. It is logically possible for progeny's genetic makeup to have nothing to do with its parents.

[BoStevoD]

@wilfredthebold Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a tautology, a circular definition. But it is a hell of a useful metaphysical research program.

[wilfredthebold]

@BoStevoD Survival Of The Fittest is a tautology, i'll grant you, since its a circular statement. The strong survive, the survivors are strong.

Natural Selection, as i understand it, is the increase of heritable traits in populations. It would be instantly falsified if offspring did not resemble their parents, and thus phenotypic variation has nothing to do with the progenitor's fitness.

[Ormaaj]

As Wittgenstein says, the world is all that is the case. So we can clearly define true statements about the world as being those consistent with the state if reality. In that sense, there is no third truth value (except perhaps in quantum logic).

I think you conclude that excluded middle is not a tautology by mangling this notion. It is a tautology in the domain of atomic a posteriori statements. Otherwise your statements either aren't atomic, or aren't making claims about a state of affairs.

[evileinstein]

Good Video - just a minor question. I know you are versed in Wittgenstein. How do you feel about his opinion (albeit mixed at times) that tautologies are not true? At least the Early Wittgenstein would argue that, as tautologies have no meaning, they can't be any more true than the statement "gdhs asdfat sfsd". If tautologies cannot be true it is even further support for your argument.

[threeofwands]

@ee

I'm sorry but I've missed this element of Witt's early philosophy. Could you post here some relevant secondary sources?

Apart from Witt. my feeling is that a repetition could be "true" simply based on it's form, since isomorphic mathematical equations are dependent upon the "equals" sign. I don't know what Azzy thinks about all this.

[evileinstein]

Tractatus, Ogden Trans.

"4.461 The proposition shows what it says, the tautology and the contradiction that they say nothing. The tautology has no truth-conditions, for it is unconditionally true; and the contradiction is on no condition true. Tautology and contradiction are without sense. (Like the point from which two arrows go out in opposite directions.) (I know, e.g. nothing about the weather, when I know that it rains or does not rain.)" It continues in the 4.46s

[threeofwands]

@evileinstein

I'm aware of the passage but I was wondering about the interpolation that you suggested - looking over my library it appears that I don't have a single *scholarly* treatment of the Tractatus.

I'm gonna have to do something about that ...

[TheMariborchan]

Tautologies are tautological.

[doctormyeyes1030]

@TheMariborchan

You sir, are win

[theprodigy2186]

The Law of Excluded Middle is a funny one.

Funny because the only thing it excludes is God.

The Alpha AND the Omega. The Beginning AND the End. The light AND the Dark. The good AND the evil.

The Truth AND the False.

God is the great paradox. Everything at once. The absolute middle.

On a number line you can move farther and farther negative, or farther and farther positive.

God lives on the Zero point.

In mathematics, we call the Zero Point on a number line, The Origin.

[Landofjello]

Are you joking??

[theprodigy2186]

I am joking, and I am not joking..

..at the same time. ; )

[Landofjello]

I can understand. Nevermind then

[787Bisurdaddy]

"Tautology" is one of those words that people love to throw around so much that they end up losing grasp of whatever meaning they ever actually had of the word, similar to how people use the word "literally" when they're not being literal. I think some people like to just verbally ejaculate all over the place.

[zaquar]

Oboy! Vilket härligt väder

[ShortbusMooner]

I wish the "pragmatism is how we know a thing is true"-idea would get through some thick skulls...

[nathanjonessr]

"pragmatism had no practical value"

That's good stuff!!

[Veritas48]

I dont think James wants to travel the road that says a tautology can be meaningful. This nullifies a great number of objections to theistic belief, specifically Christian belief. He cant have it both ways.

[Gimmeabreakman]

Making intelligent videos for morons on the internet is a waste of time. True and false at the same time. True for the moron. Not true for you. Not that you work up a sweat but at least you have to figure out a way to not be too insulting and still make it entertaining.

[jericomovie]

Could you help me understand how asking, "as opposed to what?" identifies tautologies? I'm tripped up on that. Domo.

[azrienoch]

It moreso helps us to know where to look. Tautologies offer no new information than we already had in the sentence. Useful, meaningful propositions have that forward motion of giving new information. Asking, "As opposed to what?" forces a forward-motion answer. If you still find yourself no further than you were, you just might have yourself a tautology.

[jericomovie]

Then, would it be correct to say a tautology is not a phrase, but the relationship between two phrases that share a common meaning?

[azrienoch]

More traditionally a relationship between subject and object, and sometimes subject and verb.

[jericomovie]

Ah, I see.

Then, to be clear, when you force "a forward-motion answer," your intention is to see if any new information is given that was not present in the original phrase. Is that correct?

[azrienoch]

right, to double-check. Sometimes I make mistakes in listening. Sometimes people make mistakes in talking. Better to be safe than sorry.

[jericomovie]

Is to ask, "as opposed to what?" to inquire a statement's antithesis?

[azrienoch]

yes

[jericomovie]

Then, why could one expect to ever find new information by merely inquiring a statement's antithesis?

[azrienoch]

Because informative propositions HAVE antitheses. "It's going to rain today, unless it doesn't," for example, doesn't have an antithesis.

[jericomovie]

Isn't the phrase "it's going to rain today, unless it doesn't," actually both a proposition and the proposition's antithesis?

[azrienoch]

Yes, exactly.

[jericomovie]

But, both the proposition and it's antithesis have an antithesis respectively, do they not?

[azrienoch]

Yes, and as I said in the video, it comes out like, "It's not going to rain today, unless it does." Here, I'm STILL left with the same information.

[jericomovie]

"It comes out like..."

"It" meaning the antithesis of the statement, "It is going to rain today, unless it doesn't." Correct?

[azrienoch]

Yes, sorry.

[jericomovie]

The proposition "It's going to rain today, unless it doesn't" has been identified as a non-informative proposition.

It has also been stated that non-informative propositions have no antithesis.

But, an antithesis of the non-informative proposition "It's going to rain today, unless it doesn't." has just been provided.

So should it be assumed that non-informative propositions do, after all, have antitheses?

[azrienoch]

Argh, yes, I meant that they have meaningful, useful antitheses if they are meaningful and useful.

[jericomovie]

Then, if both informative and non-informative propositions have antitheses, how might tautology be identified by inquiring the proposition's antithesis, as via the phrase "as opposed to what"?

[azrienoch]

Again, it's to double-check. I'm pretty sure we can spot a tautology fairly well, but I have been known to be wrong, and people have been known to give a tautology when they didn't mean to. Asking for the antithesis, which will be as meaningful or useful as the original, allows you to check in two places for meaningfulness and usefulness, rather than one. It's not a certain way to get at it, but it's certainly clearer with two sources than one.

[jericomovie]

Then should we assume that tautology is identified by meaningfulness and usefulness?

[threeofwands]

It's identified by repetition. Consider the tautolgous statement "It is raining and not raining." False, yes? But not false due to content. It's false due to - let's say "form".

There's no information, and yet there is a "feeling" about information. It's a feeling about form, about logic.

[azrienoch]

I'm really kind of bored of this line of discussion. If you wanted to know how tautologies are identified, you should have said so. I thought you were "caught up" with how "as opposed to what" plays into things. But really, you're just leading me on, catching me whenever I trip, which in what started as a casual conversation is quite a bit, and for no reason whatsoever.

[jericomovie]

Well, no, I don't mean to just to lead you on. It is, as it started, a discussion about how "as opposed to what" plays into things.

Once I understood where you were coming from, I saw a tripping point in that reasoning, and thereafter asked leading questions until that made itself apparent. They were not random questions, given so I could just wait until something silly was said.

Still, it was not my intention to annoy, so I'll leave it be and offer my apologies.

[threeofwands]

I'm not sure what you're after here, jc, but it seems to me that formative, non-informative propositions are exactly those propositions that tend to couple into binary opposites; e.g. Theism/Atheism; Object/Subject; Mind/Body; Spirit/Matter; Heaven/Hell; Outside/Inside: and so on an so forth.

If you are looking for a synthesis, or informative non-tautological proposition, then that would be in the realm of the natural sciences. Not to say that fun and wisdom reside there.

[staceydyan]

Have you ever thought about being a Professor? I think you would make a good one.

[YourGuardian]

hmmm.... I just lost the game... >_>

[threeofwands]

I agree for the most part. Video put me in mind of the one book I have on symbolic logic: Naive Set Theory that I bought in'82 for fifty cents at a used book store. Got it cuz it was first pub. in '63, the year I was born and the year Derrida published "Violence and Metaphysics" his breakthrough essay.

Last line of the preface:

"General set theory is pretty trivial stuff really, but you need some, and here it is; read it, absorb it, and forget it."

[JimmerSD]

Can a thing watch itself drinking a beer while watching itself? ...yeah I know, shut up Jimmer.

[doford]

tautology is logical when understanding something created.

If i say "This message makes my point" is it logical that i've succeeded in making my point?

I think i've just confused myself...

[itsbizbuz]

If I ask you "what project are you so busy procrastinating on ?" is that a tautology or just a good question ? ^__^

[XeliosX]

tee hee.

I just lost the game.

[legodesi]

Doesn't it seem that the law of non-contradiction is contained within the law of identity?

[azrienoch]

Not quite, and it's exactly because of the different as-opposed-to-what's they bring about. LNC says what it can't be, LI says what it must be.

[mahyarmohaghegh]

tangential contention! wonderful

tautologies arent useful they are structural or they describe or signify a structure it does not CREATE structure

I love these videos they are so interesting.

[Censeo]

Tautologies have a practical use. When you realize something is a tautology, you learn something, as opposed to not spotting the tautology.

Also, tautologies, which perhaps ain't supposed to be interpreted as such, are useful.

"You do what you have to do" is a tautology, but... it is common in conversation, so it has to have some practical use, otherwise people wouldn't say it all the time.

[azrienoch]

I agree, but that's a little off-topic. We're speaking about the truth of the information linked to the usefulness of the information. The usefulness has nothing to do with the information it gives.

[davius4321]

Definition of tautology: a non-useful statement. e.g. A seagull was staring at me as I was eating my lunch.

[nachtatix]

wouldn't that be useful if i wanted to know about what the seagull was doing? Wouldn't it be A seagull may have been staring at me while i was eating my lunch.

[davius4321]

Well, if you find a use for it, then it's not a tautology anymore! ;)

[naphra2]

Surely tautologies have rhetorical/pragmatic uses, though? (You're of course absolutely right about informativeness, I'm merely objecting to what could be taken as a conflation of 'useful' and 'informative'.)

[azrienoch]

Sure, but lies and false statements are useful too. The basis of the discussion is whether we know things are true through their pragmatic value.

[mavaddat]

Lies and false statements are not "useful" in the way that the pragmatist has in mind.

This is a common slander against pragmatism, that it uncritically declares all useful propositions as true without considering the way in which they're useful.

A statement is considered "true" to the pragmatist iff the statement leads or can lead to the realization (actualization in real life) of its own terms or those that logically follow from it.

A lie is not useful in this sense of "useful".

[azrienoch]

A tautology is not useful in this sense of "useful" either. The claim was made that tautologies are useful in the sense that you learn of a dead end.

I don't think it's slander, though. Just people taking advantage of oversimplifications in pragmatist arguments.

[ZullGostnu2]

Jeff, are you being absurd? I love your channel, it makes me happy.

[ZullGostnu2]

Answering a question with a question is not useful, but true. Is there such a thing as absolute truth, if so would I know it?

[ReverendAtomSmasher]

Subatomic particles do not adhere to logic. That's why they're so darned cool.

[ZullGostnu2]

yeah, I like it when reality bites me when I use logic. It keeps me sharp. Logic only adheres to language. What I know as reality is just a language symbol. I deny this symbol's truth. I still struggle forth to gain knowledge, useful or not. Funny how useless knowledge can suddenly become useful.

[ReverendAtomSmasher]

Well, I was really being knit-picky. All in all, I think he's right, I was really trying to get Jeff to call me a schmuck. :-)

I agree with you in that all knowledge is worth knowing useful or no.

[logicaust]

Cogent as always, Az.

Sounds fine to me. The laws of informal logic (which you list) are held to be truths, in other words what we frame our expectations on; but they don't help us investigate new information.

It's as you say: If someone asked what the weather will be like, the response "Well, it will either rain...or it won't rain" is useless (as it tells us nothing new).

I would point out, though, that in this context the concept of weather is a mutually understood concept between the two.

[logicaust]

I had a quick look on the internet (as you do) and there does seem to be a running debate on the question.

Of the people that have said the "laws of logic" *aren't* tautological, Arthur Pap went into the semantics of how the debate framed the word "tautological". Seriously...

Finally, a thought occurred to me.

Is the back & forth on this all over the notion that because a "tautology" is true, it has worth (and therefore, with this line of thinking, not "useless")?

Oh, you people...

Peace.

[leporidus]

Define »worth« and »use«. Just kidding. Thought-provoking stuff, just in time for the weekend.

[dootdbc]

it is what it is

[anonforuz]

I find this useful. I can now talk , and at the same time talk about nothing.

give people information, but no useful information.

"will it rain" it will unless it doesnt. hAHahah

[bubonicnate]

wow, this looks like a fun conversation - why don't I join in...

[brainpolice2]

Poop is poop.

[bubonicnate]

qua as is qua

[brainpolice2]

Poop qua poop.

[LanceDirk]

Because it first must be determined if one case is the negation of the other in order for the law of excluded middle to apply, what the law is reduced to is "if either A or not A is true then either A or not A is true." That is a Tautology as far as the law of identity is.

[LanceDirk]

...The Law of excluded middle, then essentially says "either A is true, or 'A is true' is not the case." If you were to say "A is partially true" then rather than attack the law of excluded middle, you must simply be more clear. If by "A is true" you mean "A is totally true" then it is true that "'A is true' is not the case" and "A is true" is not true. You know what I mean. Looking at it this way, it appears to me that the Law of EM is a tautology and it is not that useful.

[w0r1dpeace]

lol!!!

[LanceDirk]

I don't think that's the correct interpretation of the law of excluded middle. I think the actual law is markedly more true and less useful. I mean, doesn't it seem unlikely that a law of logic would have the false dichotomy fallacy built into it? Rather than say something is either true or false, you would say it's either true or not true.

[LanceDirk]

Actually, I may have had it wrong too. First of all, what you're describing sounds more like the principle of bivalence, which is not the same thing. The law of excluded middle only applies when one condition is the negation of the other. Clearly false is not a true negation of true, but as far as I can tell, "totally true" and "not totally true" is a true negation, as long as the statement is clear. Continued...

[zitan17]

dasamericanatheist seems to enjoy words. it sounded like babel being spouted for little purpose other then to make the video longer then 37 sec. this is why i like math, words and letters are a blight on humanity... unless those words have numeric value, at that point they have some form of redemption.

[TogetherForPeace]

i appreciate you sharing your thoughts. i find it helpful. :)

[JasperAvi]

Oh, and how dare you respond to me without linking to my video or my channel.

So silly of you, Az!

[onlywhenprovoked]

my comment is a comment

[mavaddat]

Every math & logic proof is a "tautology" in the sense of the conclusion being some set of propositions that follows from & implies the axioms from which they are derived.

Every deductive argument is a tautology in the same way. E.g., the statement "If it is true that 'A implies B', and 'not B' is true, then 'not A' is true," is a tautology.

All these sentences being tautologies, however, does not diminish their informational & pragmatic content.

[Censeo]

Well said. Those are clearly useful, yet they are tautologies.

[azrienoch]

There was a debate over whether all logic is tautologous back in the day, because you end up repeating yourself a bunch with setting up parameters and then filling them. The example they used was p -> p. (I have that tattooed on my arm.) The problem here is that, what were saying if we say that this and your example is a tautology, predictions are tautologous if they turn out true. Even if that's true, the useful bit has already happened by the time the tautology becomes.

[mavaddat]

Sorry, Az. I'm not sure I follow.

While correct that "predictions are tautologies" this does not depend on their "being true," but rather, their being true depends on the tautologous nature of the hypothesis (predicted event), background assumptions, and given observation (seen event) trifecta.

If we take the Quine-Duhem model seriously, then the pragmatic point arises precisely in choosing of the *most useful* tautology to fit our needs. Why is this a problem for the pragmatist?

[azrienoch]

The problem is that it wasn't the tautology that was useful, it was the prediction. The prediction alone is not tautologous, just as A -> B is not tautologous. Both are, however, the useful part.

At any rate, I'm not convinced that A -> B, A, therefore B is a tautology. The A, therefore B is not the same as the conditional. The conditional is in a sense timeless, while A, therefore B is in a sense instantial. The same goes for p -> p: P-as-antecedent is not the same as p-as-precedent.

[azrienoch]

It's like a very specific interpretation of "A chair is a chair." A chair is not the same as chair-ness. This interpretation is useful. The tautological interpretation, where THAT chair is THAT chair, isn't useful. The pragmatist that says things are true if they're useful has a tough time dealing with tautologies because the information they explicitly convey is not useful, but it is, in the same way with the same explicity, true.

[mavaddat]

Right, I understood that you were making that argument from your video.

My point was that tautologies, far from being useless, can convey important informational content.

For example, Fischer's sex ratio argument for the distribution of sexes is a straightforward mathematical tautology. Yet, it is also extremely useful.

The same goes for the "Hardy-Weinberg Law" that predicts the frequencies of certain genotypes from a purely mathematical tautology.

I fail to see how these are not useful.

[azrienoch]

Me too. But I fail to see how it's a tautology.

[JasperAvi]

A) I don't think we ever agreed that you ended (and succeeded in) the discussion in my comment section. But, if it makes you this giddy, it's all yours!

B) I think you absolutely mashed together both James' and my points of view. Now, am I going to make an entire video explaining where you've done this and why I don't think you've really made your points? I don't know.

Thanks for the silly response though, Az!

[azrienoch]

On A, I don't really need you to agree. Denial is free to everyone.

On B, it shouldn't matter if I mashed them together. I asked, "Are you siding with DAA that tautologies are pragmatic? Furthermore, are you saying the laws of logic are tautologous?"

You said, "I am and I am."

[JasperAvi]

On A, your assessment of denial is certainly ironic.

On B, yes it should matter. Firstly, James and I did NOT take the same route at elaborating on why we think what we do. Consequently, some wide scale comment doesn't serve as a refutation of both points.

Secondly, I referenced its place in the world of philosophical and metaphysical practice. Now, your comment "...you know how I feel about Philosophy" was cute, but writing a book about Philosophy as absurd isn't an end all to Philosophy.

[azrienoch]

Well, it's certainly not an end to philosophy, but that's not for want of an end. That denial creeps in even here. And this isn't to toot my own horn: I summarized and expounded a little on the work Wittgenstein, Derrida, and a few others did to make the end of philosophy as apparent as possible.

[JasperAvi]

Making a philosophy book to end Philosophy seems fruitless to me, but, what do I know? I'm just a measly philosopher.

[azrienoch]

Regarding your different routes, DAA didn't take any. He made the claim and then you took over with the explanations.

[JasperAvi]

If that's the case, I don't believe any of this addressed by points in the text of Jack's video..... Hrmm.... Maybe I'll have to make a video. Ugh. We shall wait for the weekend.

Either way, thanks for the video, Az.

[azrienoch]

The text of Jack's video?  I don't remember talking on Jack's video.

[JasperAvi]

James'

[azrienoch]

Oh. See, I was thinking you were talking about logic as not the game that it is. That's why I redirected the discussion back to what it was about, which was whether the information tautologies give is useful (and therefore true), and whether the laws of logic are an example of that. I mean, if you disagreed with that, then you shouldn't have said, "I am and I am." I can't read your mind, I've only got context to go on.

[Mjhavok]

Define game.

[threeofwands]

Game = "on".

[maksiiiskam2]

an occasion to be first?