Talk:Tautology (rhetoric)/Archive 2011

Tautology and pleonasm
I don't think this is written in the most comprehensible fashion. For example, it describes what an Pleonasm is and then goes on to give examples of Tautology. Not very clear. Maybe someone could sort this bit out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.83.39 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is "free gift" a pleonasm or tautology? It's used as an example for both. From the description of the difference a "free gift" is a pleonasm, and thus shouldn't be listed here. A "free book which costs nothing" would be a similar example of a tautology. Yes? Similarly other examples of tautologies here seem to be pleonasms instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.61.157 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Physics equations aren't tautologies
There is a revert war going on with this section. It was on wikipedia for nearly a month, it should not now suddenly be removed. would mods please resolve. &vellip; Some of the mods says that this section is 'unsourced'. Well so is the opening paragraph of wikipedia. Problem with what constitutes a rhetorical tautology is that somebody who disagrees because it conflicts with his world view pulls out the unsrouced red herring, instead of dealing with the argument.Maybe it is unsourced, so what? In what way does it invalidate the argument.
 * Wikipedia is not for making arguments. It is for presenting information found in reliable sources. Beach drifter (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The implication is that falsification itself is in a sense but a 'subset' of unfalsifiability raising Philosophical questions. Poets, thinkers, rhetoricians and scientists all use 'tautological' semantics, leading to a structural ambiguity(Berry paradox) with the term 'tautological' resulting in Equivocation between logical assertions and falsifiable propositions when arguing for a particular world view. Not all unfalsifiable constructs are logical fallacies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.122.106 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It IS unsourced and poorly written besides (rambling sentences, contractions, single quotes instead of double around items that don't need either). I don't disagree with the material itself (the bare bones that physics =/= tautology).  But as the section is written currently it is the very definition of  original research and synthesis of material. Millahnna (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. It appears to be unsourced original research. The fact that other things on wikipedia are not sourced has nothing to do with this being unsourced. Even if it becomes sourced, I question it being included in the article. While perhaps some people in some certain field are discussing this very defined subject, I have never heard of anyone running around proclaiming that an equation is a tautology, and find it very unlikely that anyone would come to this article to find information about that. Lastly, as stated in many places on wikipedia, unsourced material can be removed at anytime. Stop reverting. The WP:BRD cycle is be bold, revert, discuss. You made bold edits, I am reverting, then we discuss, Not the other way around. Beach drifter (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You are an editor, does this make your word final? Should there not be some sort of majority view, is there no way for dispute resolution. Please get a mod then to settle the issue. A mod has already marked the section as unsourced, you should therefore not override a mods edit?
 * Several issues here. One, I am not trying to make anything final. Two, all editors are equal here on wikipedia, an admin has no more say than I do in this matter. Three, as I suggested above, you should read WP:BRD. The bold, revert, discuss cycle is how a lot of editing is done on wikipedia. When a new edit is reverted, it is generally hashed out on the talk page before being reinstated, or not. This might take some time. In the meantime, since there is absolutely zero sourcing to the edits, I have removed them. Instead of arguing about my role in this, you could be addressing the concerns raised and trying to improve your edit. Beach drifter (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Beach drifter, for what it's worth. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let it therefore be known that the Wikipedia Epicureans due to their tautologified thinking can't grasp what a tautology is. The source page for the entry is my wiki entry at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology. I am a YEC and created the wikia page on scratchpad to explain what a tautology is. There are Epicurean editors that agree with me that f=ma isn't a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.122.106 (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say this one more time and hopefully you'll actually read the words. I agree physics equations aren't tautologies.  But no one is saying that they are - not in the article, not here on the talk page.  What we are saying is that the material you are trying to introduce is unsourced which goes against policies on Wikipedia.  I am saying that the material does not belong on the page because it is poorly written, unsourced, and not relevant to anything else there.  Perhaps, if there were a source asserting that such equations WERE tautologies, your material would have some relevance (it would still require better writing and references).  But none of that is the case. It's like randomly inserting material about apples in an article about oranges.  Millahnna (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What on earth does Epicureanism have to do with our lack of agreement here? A belief in individual sensuality and pleasure has absolutely nothing to do with my objective assessment that the section you are trying to insert does not belong.  Millahnna (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

f=ma is not a tautology but a statement of equivalence. x=x is a logical validity or tautology as per naming conventions on my wikia page. In one context it could be a fallacy in another not. For example x=x and therefore my mommy had a long tail would be where the conclusion is a non-sequitur. I also wrote the opening paragraph on wikipedia, it is also unsourced because it was lifted from an ID/YEC article on how the idea represented with natural selection is a tautology. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology for details —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.122.106 (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Is a pony a small horse?
Regarding the recent edits regarding My Little Pony, Wikipedia's article for Pony starts with "A pony is a small horse" with three references. GoingBatty (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Read further along in the article in this section. "The distinction between a horse and pony is not simply a difference in height, but other aspects of phenotype or appearance, such as conformation and temperament. Ponies often exhibit thicker manes, tails, and overall coat. They also have proportionally shorter legs, wider barrels, heavier bone, shorter and thicker necks, and short heads with broad foreheads."  The rest of the paragraph elaborates further.  It works as a generalization but isn't always true.  I guess it could still work for the purposes of this article though, given the "generally, yes" factor.  SO yeah, go ahead and undo my undo if others think it's close enough. I guess for most people, it should serve as a decent example of the concept.  Millahnna (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether or not a pony is a small horse, there is still no tautology in little pony. A pony is small for a horse.  A little pony is small for a pony.  The example should be removed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Trovatore. I don't see a tautology here. Phoenixrod (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

 * "This article may contain too much repetition or redundant language. Please help improve it by merging similar text or removing repeated statements. (July 2011)"

Nice one, whoever you are. 131.111.150.66 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I read the same thing, and thought it a very clever pun. Timber72 (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)