I know that it would be logical to follow this title with a rehash of 
the discussion from item number one.

Suffice it to say that the whole thing began when yours truly 
asked "What is a tautology?" or perhaps considerably before that, when 
Paul used the term "Begging the question".

I will, here, put forward a request to Paul Kershaw to post as much of 
the previously mentioned conversation to this item, in so far as he 
desires to do so, as I am ignorant of the method through back talk.  
Then, let the discussion continue from there.

20 responses total.

Oh no!  That means I'll have to read it all *again*!  :)

I don't really know how to do it either. =} I don't think the thread started
with me, anyhow. I thought it started with Jamie responding to someone else.

The short short version:  there's a small but important difference between
"tautology" and "begging the question" (or so I claim), and being unaware of
it risks annoying nerds like me who really ought to be doing something better
with their time.  

I forgot Item 1 the day it was created, so I don't know what anyone has 
entered.  Here's what you find on the web if you look:

From http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/begging.htm

Begging the Question (petitio principii)
 
Definition: 

The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the 
conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different 
form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the 
conclusion. 

Examples: 

Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.  

We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.  What the 
Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies. (Here, 
we must agree that God exists in order to believe that God wrote the 
Bible.) 

Proof: 
Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must 
already agree that the conclusion is true.


From http://www.xrefer.com/entry/444132

Tautology 

(1) Also pleonasm. A term in rhetoric for unnecessary and ineffective 
repetition, usually with words that add nothing new: She was alone by 
herself; Me myself personally. Many tautological (or tautologous) 
expressions occur in everyday usage. The tautology in some is 
immediately apparent: all well and good; to all intents and purposes; 
cool, calm, and collected; free, gratis, and for nothing; ways and 
means. In others, it is less obvious, because they contain archaic 
elements: by hook or by crook; a hue and cry; not a jot or tittle; kith 
and kin; null and void; part and parcel; rack and ruin; weird and 
wonderful; without let or hindrance. 

(2) In logic, a compound proposition that is always true: A or not-A, 
as in Either it is raining or it is not raining in Dublin today.

yeah.  what he said.

Discuss.

What's to discuss?

The drift must have died, and become irrelevant.

*insane maniacal laughter, interspersed with incessant giggling*

If the giggling is incessant, there's no time available for maniacal
laughter.  Therefore, #7 is false.

To drift from the drift, I've long thought the "kith" in "kith and kin"
was "friends"; dict says I'm wrong:  "{Kith and kin}, kindred more or
less remote."

#8> That assumes that the giggler and the laugher in #7 are the same person.
That was implied, but not required.
 
#2, #3> I'm not commenting because I've had my say, and I'm trying to get out
of dead-horse-beating. If you have a speicifc question, by all means, ask
them, but I think flem and I have found our common ground, and that's good
enough for me.
 
#9> I think you may be misinterpreting "kindred." "Kith" traditionally means
something along the lines of "people related by oath or fealty, especially
your own." "Kindred" means something along the lines of "total realm of
'extended family,'" by whatever literal or metaphoric use of "family" you
assume. Your kith and kin would be everyone you take to be your "tribe" or
your "social support system," including family as well as best friends,
in-laws, etc.

Cf. "kindred spirit"

If I had huge wads of time on my hands, I'd try to segue into a discussion
of the propositional calculus, which, if nothing else, would be useful to
point to next time something like this comes up.  

Dang.  I hate it when the drift dies.  Oh well.

Well, when you up and actually create an *item* for it, what do you expect?
It's not drift anymore, after all.  :)

Anybody who posts a discussion of the propositional calculus
runs the risk that I will grade it.  I do teach propositional
calculus rather frequently.

Jamie! Post!

THAT would be entertainment... Jamie being graded by John.
>=}

lol

This response has been erased.

If I ever post a discussion of propositional calculus, I would welcome your
comments, remmers.  :)

My word.  Something Jamie and I agree on.  I never thought it would 
happen.

re #9 adn #10 ..... methinks ya both have it waaay too narrowly
constricted.
  
i believe it's your 2nd cousin who is teh specified person.,
  
"kitthin kin"    
  
anyway, she alwyas gets a kith from me ...,...

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss