Let's play the tautology game

So, on SF, I've posted a thread discussing tautologies. At first, I didn't quite get the concept, but now I do, and further - I've come to the conclusion that sometimes, I use tautology-speak.   So, we should play a little game.

Let's list the tautologies that we commonly use. 

I realize that at times, I'll say ''Personally, I...'' that is a tautology, because I don't have to say ''personally,'' since the "I" clarifies straight away, that it's personal. Forgive me, I'm obsessed with tautologies right now!

What are some of yours?

There's nothing wrong with colloquial redundancy. Verbal redundancy helps ensure accurate communication, especial when something may be missed.

The only tautologies worth any consideration, IMO, are logical ones. While some are just brute facts, others are attempts to sound like arguments while being vacuous.

That's exactly where it's a bit confusing for me - what is the fundamental difference between a ''valid argument'' and a tautology?

I agree with your point, though. In everyday speech, it's probably not a big deal. But, in formal writing, we should try to avoid it. (as to not appear redundant)

Trying to decide whether ‘game’ is necessary in thread title. Same for ‘Let’s play’. Why not ‘ Let’s play tautology(ies)’ or ‘The tautology game’.

Play & game...synonymous?

Yep, I think you're right, Z.

(May 14, 2019 01:44 PM)Leigha Wrote: Yep, I think you're right, Z.

IDK. 

Perhaps it’s a stretch. Do casual readers care about redundancies?

(May 14, 2019 02:49 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:

(May 14, 2019 01:44 PM)Leigha Wrote: Yep, I think you're right, Z.

IDK. 

Perhaps it’s a stretch. Do casual readers care about redundancies?

Well, for this thread, I care. 

What you may actually be poking at is its use as a fallacy label for circular reasoning. Just call it circular reasoning rather than tautology, otherwise it can be confused in the jungle out there with multiple shades of meaning, including the rather trivial issue of redundant language, which revolves around good grammar rather than argumentation.

Pertaining to "tautology" in other logic context, avoid those dense symbol elaborations which run around all over the place like a chicken with its head cut off. You're not going to need that labyrinth in everyday discussion. Keep it simple, like tautology as mundane "something that is true in all circumstances". "She is either brave or she is not brave" is supposedly an unassailable truth that covers all the possibilities for that (in an absolute world without mutable and fuzzy degrees, I guess), but thereby may look functionally useless.

But: tautologies must not be dismissed. In a sense, what the word can sometimes be generally recruiting is how the establishment has already preset the structure of existing knowledge and thought and how it is conceptually organized, and thereby you may just be appealing to those existing relationships or analyzing the internal structure of a concept which is "already there" as convention. So that such hardly makes it globally useless everywhere/everywhen, or inherently faulty.

(May 14, 2019 04:47 PM)C C Wrote: What you may actually be poking at is its use as a fallacy label for circular reasoning. Just call it circular reasoning rather than tautology, otherwise it can be confused in the jungle out there with multiple shades of meaning, including the rather trivial issue of redundant language, which revolves around good grammar rather than argumentation.

Pertaining to "tautology" in other logic context, avoid those dense symbol elaborations which run around all over the place like a chicken with its head cut off. You're not going to need that labyrinth in everyday discussion. Keep it simple, like tautology as mundane "something that is true in all circumstances". "She is either brave or she is not brave" is supposedly an unassailable truth that covers all the possibilities for that (in an absolute world without mutable and fuzzy degrees, I guess), but thereby may look functionally useless.

But: tautologies must not be dismissed. In a sense, what the word can sometimes be generally recruiting is how the establishment has already preset the structure of existing knowledge and thought and how it is conceptually organized, and thereby you may just be appealing to those existing relationships or analyzing the internal structure of a concept which is "already there" as convention. So that such hardly makes it globally useless everywhere/everywhen, or inherently faulty.

Oh, I like using ''circular reasoning'' much better. But in terms of formal writing, it can be helpful as to not cause one to appear redundant. 

Like I've stated above, it's not uncommon for me state ''Personally, I...'' I should state either/or. 

Thanks CC!

(May 14, 2019 05:00 AM)Leigha Wrote: That's exactly where it's a bit confusing for me - what is the fundamental difference between a ''valid argument'' and a tautology?

Tautologies, by their very nature, cannot be supported by other facts or arguments, as they are always true (we agree OR we don't). The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, which is always false (we agree AND we don't).

Quote:I agree with your point, though. In everyday speech, it's probably not a big deal. But, in formal writing, we should try to avoid it. (as to not appear redundant)

I wouldn't even worry about it in formal writing, as it has use as emphasis or style.