The Issue Of Tautological Reasoning.

[Doctordick]

Well, I am back. Been to Denver to visit our grandchild. During that sojourn I have reread a number of comments made by those who I had expected to understand what I was talking about. It has become clear to me that certain aspects of my analysis have been completely overlooked by these people. I particularly refer to Qfwfq, modest and Erasmas00. If there are others who have made the same error, I apologize for overlooking you.

 

This post is dedicated to clarifying that aspect of my analysis. Sorry for my lack of clarity but I had presumed the issue would be pretty obvious to any serious thinking person. The following is an exact quote of the opening of the original paper I attempted to publish in 1982.

 

There is a subtle aspect to science unrealized by many scientists. When one designs an experiment, one must be careful to assure that the result is not predetermined by definition: that is, that one is actually checking something of significance. A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill. If one begins that experiment by defining downhill with a carpenters level, one has made a major error. They have clearly predefined the result of the experiment as downhill has been defined to be the direction water runs (the bubble being the absence of water). In such a case, it is rather a waste of time to finish carrying out such an experiment no matter how well the rest of the experiment is designed. It should be clear that to do so is nothing more then checking the consistency of one's definitions.

 

In modern science, it is often very difficult to be confident that we have taken into account the full consequences of our definitions. In fact, the issue is seldom, if ever, even carefully considered; I believe most researchers, not knowing how to attack the problem, simply prefer to presume others have already taken care of these issues rather than overtly recognize that their definitions are not well thought out. The general attitude seems to be that, if errors existed, someone would have found them. In this regard, it is interesting to note that, in essence, Einstein pointed out that Newton's picture of the universe was inconsistent with the definition of time; or rather, that time could not be defined in a manner consistent with Newton's picture (which is, in effect, exactly the same thing).

My interest here concerns the definition of “an explanation” and exactly what that definition implies.

 

Section 1: My definition of an explanation:

 

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

A “procedure” constitutes some sort of instruction, “expectations” constitute an estimated probability of yes/no decisions and “circumstances” constitute a description of whatever it is we are concerned with expecting. As for my meaning of “rational” see my post Defining the nature of rational discussion! In that post I explain why I feel “rational” means that the the result does not generate an emotionally negative response as to its truth. I will presume the meaning of “hypothetical” is understood.

What I am trying to point out is that my original interest was to discover exactly what the definition of “an explanation” implies: i.e., I was concerned with examining a series of self-reinforcing statements that could not be disproved because the truth of the statements depended on the assumption that they are already correct (what was true was true by definition). I was not looking for explanations nor was I making any attempt to represent all explanations. I did of course produce a representation (see the discussion in the above quote); however, that representation is an artificial tautological construct not designed to represent explanations but rather designed to represent circumstances to be explained together with the associated expectations implied by those specific explanations, quite a different matter: i.e., the tautological consequences of the definitions themselves.

 

The only valid complaint applicable to my presentation is evidence that my construct is not tautological: i.e., that something I present is not consequential to my definitions (one should note that I add many definitions of terms during the presentation). There is no need to justify these definitions as it is the entire result which is tautological by construct. The only possible complaint applicable to my attack is that there exist circumstances where the definitions I put forth can not be applied (and that would be circumstances defined by my tautological construct, not circumstances defined by your world view). Here I refer to Qfwfq's continual complaints concerning my introduction of modern physics operators, particularly his interest in not allowing anti-commuting operators by virtue of their being "ad hoc".

 

I already got out of them that the FE is arrived at with ad hoc choices, deliberately made to get the Dirac equation, so I don't see the point of beating a dead horse........

Qfwfq clearly misses the point: the issue is, is my construct tautological or not? If it is, then it is true by definition and contains utterly no information about reality: i.e., his counter examples need not be consistent with my definitions. Another fundamental issue that Qfwfq seems to miss is that, if an equation is valid prior to performing the same operation on both sides of the equation, it is still valid after the operation is performed on both sides (except for some very specific operations which I take great care to avoid). If Qfwfq can find an operation used in the construct of my fundamental equation which produces an erroneous result, I would be very interested in knowing about it.

 

If I have made no such error, my tautological result is universally valid. However, that also means that it can not provide any information about reality other than direct constraints implied by the definition of an explanation. It is that consequence which makes the discovery that modern physics is, in every instance I am aware of, an approximate solution to my fundamental equation a rather astounding result as that result seems to imply that modern science itself is a tautological construct.

 

People very definitely keep trying to bring up counter examples under the presumption that there could exist a particular counter example which would contradict my fundamental equation. It should be clear to all that such an attack is not at all applicable unless one can prove that the counterexample is both correct and unique: i.e., that no future explanation of will ever replace the chosen example brought forth.

 

In addition, having shown that most all of modern physics is an approximate solution to my equation, that counterexample would also see, to be a counterexample to some accepted aspect of modern physics. What I am trying to point out is that trying to think of counterexamples is a totally worthless attack on my presentation and does no more than explicitly demonstrate that the critic has no understanding of my presentation. This is something which only Anssi seems to comprehend.

 

Everyone, except Anssi, seems to miss the point that my analysis has to do with constraints imposed upon the explanation due to the definition of “an explanation” and nothing else. That means that the constraints under examination can have nothing to do with the actual reality of the information being explained or with the means of communicating that explanation: i.e., the language being used to express the explanation. This brings us back to the original critical question:

 

Perceptions clearly cannot be defined prior to the existence of a world view and the world view has to be based on something. Why people cannot comprehend this as a significant difficulty is simply beyond me.

It is indeed a very difficult question to approach. It seems that we have no way of examining an explanation unless we can solve the problem of creating one. It very much seems to turn out that this difficulty is actually totally moot. We have no need to create an explanation as we have already amassed a great number of explanations in spite of the apparent difficulty. All we need do is examine characteristics of those explanations consistent with the implied constraints of the definition of an explanation: i.e., one can examine the possible variations of known explanations consistent with the given definitions. These would be those variations due to the absolute freedom of labeling inherent in the definition. Essentially what Anssi is talking about when he brings up semantics as he so often does.

 

That is exactly what I am talking about when I make complex comparisons between different possible presentations of the same explanation. Our descriptions of reality seem to have no bearing on reality at all but are rather no more than the inductive consequences of the assertion that "the future will be quite similar to the past" or, another way of looking at the effect, "the information representing the past (what we know) is so vast that the minor component of information we call the present can not be expected to change our expectations much".

 

That is to say, no matter what our world view is and what logic we use to defend it, if it is internally consistent with itself it will, for the most part, obey my fundamental equation and thus one man's world view can be mapped into another's no matter what that world view might be. Learning the mapping is what we call learning the language of communication.

 

That is the heart of the matter and I challenge anyone to prove I am wrong!

 

I hope this post clears up a few important issues.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[lawcat]

I disagree with your definition of rational. Rational is opposite of emotion. If I hate the truth, it does not make the truth irrational. Your definition fails. It is a lie, it is inconsistent with evidence.

 

I disagree with your definition of explanation. Explanation is a statement, nothing more, nothing less. Statements can be true or false, as can explanations.

 

Statements which are consistent with evidence are truth. Truth is a statement consistent with evidence. Truth is an explanation consistent with evidence.

 

You Dr. D deny evidence. You believe in expectations of evidence. You believe in magic. I believe in facts.

[Doctordick]

I believe in facts.

That's nice, belief is quite a comfort isn't it? Why don't you go bother someone else with your beliefs?

[Rade]

But, DD, you did not answer the claim posted by Lawcat, that you believe in "expectations of evidence". So by your silence you agree with this belief, correct ?

[Rade]

DD. A refreshing approach for you this time around would be to compare and contrast your definition of "explanation" with those historically presented.

 

The link below to a historical summary of definitions of explanation is a good place for you to start. Please present to the forum why anyone should adopt your definition of "explanation" over the many others that have been presented before you. Please be specific....compare and contrast your new approach to define "explanation" to the many others available.

 

Here is the link:

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/

[Rade]

Statement of DD: A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill.

DD. It would be very useful to the forum if you would state how you would begin to test this simple example, since you claim above that you would not begin the experiment with a "definition of the word downhill". I mean, it is your simple example, please provide your simple experimental design to test the hypothesis presented.

[Doctordick]

So by your silence you agree with this belief, correct ?

Beliefs are the foundations of religion and I don't think religion belongs in a philosophy of science forum. You want to talk religion, go someplace other than my threads.

 

DD. A refreshing approach for you this time around would be to compare and contrast your definition of "explanation" with those historically presented.

A refreshing approach for you would be for you to put a modicum of thought into your responses. Your absolute refusal to think is astonishing. To quote Bertrand Russell, “Many people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so.”

 

The link below to a historical summary of definitions of explanation is a good place for you to start. Please present to the forum why anyone should adopt your definition of "explanation" over the many others that have been presented before you. Please be specific....compare and contrast your new approach to define "explanation" to the many others available.

 

Here is the link:

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/

Why didn't you read it yourself before posting. If you did read it, you certainly paid no attention to what it said; or perhaps it was just too far over your head.

 

According to the Deductive-Nomological Model, a scientific explanation consists of two major “constituents”: an explanandum, a sentence “describing the phenomenon to be explained”

That would be the part I call the “circumstances to be explained” (the term sentence being expressed via a list of numerical references to the supposed meaningful symbols used as a language). Your attitude appears to include belief that the language you speak is the end all of possible means of expression (ah, belief is such a comfort to the ignorant).

 

and an explanans, “the class of those sentences which are adduced to account for the phenomenon” (Hempel and Oppenheim, 1948, reprinted in Hempel, 1965, p. 247).

Accounting for the phenomenon is (unless you are too ignorant to comprehend how one might account for such things) differentiating between what is expected and what is not expected. Again, the only universal language for such a differentiation would be via the probabilities of “circumstances” as I have defined them.

 

For the explanans to successfully explain the explanandum several conditions must be met. First, “the explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans” and “the sentences constituting the explanans must be true”. (Hempel, 1965, p. 248).

The expression, “the explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans”, is totally equivalent to “one must be a function of the other”. Too bad you cannot comprehend mathematical vocabulary; that is a sorry fault but one you seem sincerely unable to overcome.

 

The expression, “the sentences constituting the explans must be true” is no more than a statement that the logic defining that function I just referred to above must be valid. Because you are simply too ignorant to comprehend what is being said is no reason to impose your inadequate comprehension on me. I am an old man and have no time to coach those who are as mentally deprived as you are.

 

Bertrand Russell - “The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.”

 

I have done that and it is just too bad the whole thing is just totally over your head.

 

DD. It would be very useful to the forum if you would state how you would begin to test this simple example, since you claim above that you would not begin the experiment with a "definition of the word downhill". I mean, it is your simple example, please provide your simple experimental design to test the hypothesis presented.

Again, your ignorance astounds me. There is no hypotheses presented; the presentation is no more than an example of definition being ignored.

 

Please go away!

[Rade]

Response of Doctordick: A refreshing approach for you would be for you to put a modicum of thought into your responses. Your absolute refusal to think is astonishing.....Why didn't you read it yourself before posting. If you did read it' date=' you certainly paid no attention to what it said; or perhaps it was just too far over your head.[/quote']Well, I read Hempel many years ago and noticed the resemblance of his Deductive Nomological Model of explanation to the one you have been presenting (with some differences in terms of the nomological criteria presented by Hempel). So, no need to thank me, I am happy to see that my post finally motivated you to read Hempel.

 

But, since you apparently are so keen to inform us that your approach supports Hempel, this means you must reject the Statistical Relevance Model of explanation, the one that concludes that the explanandum does not follow from the explanans, but that any "explanation" represents instead an assembly of information that is statistically relevant to an explanandum. Given that you logically cannot have your approach agree with both models, your choice is Hempel. Happy to help you put your approach into historical philosophic perspective.

 

There is no hypotheses presented; the presentation is no more than an example of definition being ignored.

A hypothesis is implied by your presentation. You present a thought "experiment" (word you used)' date=' and all experiments require at least one null hypothesis to be tested scientifically. And, I am happy to see that you never expected that anyone would be so foolish as to attempt to test the experiment you presented.

 

Please go away!

But then you will be very lonely for I am one of the last on the forum to show any interest in anything you have to say concerning your approach to explanation. But, as you wish, since you asked politely by using the P word

[JMJones0424]

A hypothesis is implied by your presentation. You present a thought "experiment" (word you used), and all experiments require at least one null hypothesis to be tested scientifically. And, I am happy to see that you never expected that anyone would be so foolish as to attempt to test the experiment you presented.

His point was that there's no point in testing if water runs downhill, because embodied in the concept of the direction downhill is that it's the direction water normally flows.

 

There is a subtle aspect to science unrealized by many scientists. When one designs an experiment, one must be careful to assure that the result is not predetermined by definition: that is, that one is actually checking something of significance. A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill. If one begins that experiment by defining downhill with a carpenters level, one has made a major error. They have clearly predefined the result of the experiment as downhill has been defined to be the direction water runs (the bubble being the absence of water).

 

It seems clear to me that he intended to show that the experiment is worthless.

[Doctordick]

It seems clear to me that he intended to show that the experiment is worthless.

I thank you for your comment. On these forums, it is quite easy to get the impression that no one of any intelligence is paying any attention to what one says; an intelligent comment occasionally is a welcome change of pace.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

His point was that there's no point in testing if water runs downhill...

No, in fact, he made no logical point. Of course one can be interested in the question of testing if water runs against gravity (e.g., downhill), it is called capillary action, or capillarity = the ability of a liquid to flow against gravity (downhill).

 

It seems clear to me that he intended to show that the experiment is worthless.

But' date=' the "experiment" he presented is not worthless, that condition derives only from his presentation of the concept he was trying but failed to explain, hence my comment that I was happy to see that he never expected that anyone would be so foolish as to attempt [b']to test the experiment he presented[/b].

[ReinsteNanoVentures_22958]

Topic is very nice and all reviews are also so much interesting to understand the answer of this question immediately.

[JMJones0424]

Of course one can be interested in the question of testing if water runs against gravity (e.g., downhill), it is called capillary action, or capillarity = the ability of a liquid to flow against gravity (downhill).

Do you not see that by substituting "runs against gravity" in place of "runs downhill... defining downhill with a carpenters level," you have removed the error the hypothetical poorly designed experiment was meant to illuminate?

 

This thread is not about the motion of fluids when exposed to gravity fields.

 

"One must be careful to assure that the result is not predetermined by definition."

[Rade]

Do you not see that by substituting "runs against gravity" in place of "runs downhill... defining downhill with a carpenters level," you have removed the error the hypothetical poorly designed experiment was meant to illuminate?

No, I do not see what you see. There is no "error removed" in the presentation by the word game substitution you suggest, for gravity can be measured using the inclinometer tool by the physicist in the same way downhill can be measured using the level tool by the carpenter. Both "define" the terms of interest [downhill, gravity] using a tool. See this link:

 

http://www.craftsofnj.org/toolshed/articles/Gravity%20inclinometer/GRAVITY%20INCLINOMETERS.htm

 

Perhaps it would be of benefit if you could explain what you think DD means when he uses the term "definition"..that is, how does DD define "definition" ?

[Rade]

Claim of DD: The only valid complaint applicable to my presentation is evidence that my construct is not tautological: i.e.' date=' that something I present is not consequential to my definitions (one should note that I add many definitions of terms during the presentation).[/quote']

 

Well, first, this is not the "only" valid complaint, there are many, presented by others on not only this thread but many, many others. For example, there are many, many hypothetical circumstances (your term) that cannot be explained using your definitions.

 

But, let us agree with you that your construct (what you present) is tautological (consequential to your definitions). OK, but what type of tautological reasoning are you applying ? A simple to understand answer comes from Wiki, and we see that the type of tautological reasoning you use for this thread is called a "rhetorical tautology", which is "... defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that the truth of the proposition cannot be disputed by defining a term in terms of another self-referentially."

 

OK, great. But, alas, because your presentation from which you derive your fundamental equation is by your own definition based on rhetorical tautological reasoning, we find also from Wiki that ..."consequently, your presentation conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity [or how many definitions you add] making it unfalsifiable...".

 

But why you ask ? Because ..." Your presentation is a way of formulating a construct such that it masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived. A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic, since the inherent meanings and subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical tautologies are very different..."

 

So, sorry to burst your bubble. But, in your rush to expose that your presentation claims the high logical ground of being derived from use of rhetorical tautology type reasoning (AND NOT FROM TAUTOLOGY USING PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC], you must then also reach the logical conclusion (I'm sure unintended) that your presentation conveys no (0% expectation) useful information about anything not already presented by others. But, perhaps if you reformulate your presentation and eliminate use of rhetorical tautology, and adopt an approach using propositional logic tautology, something of value will result from your time and effort. Perhaps even something that could be presented to a peer reviewed journal of philosophy can then be developed. Best of luck to you, I have done all I can to help you. OK, now I go away forever. I promise never again to directly reply to anything you post on this thread topic.

[Doctordick]

Thank you Mr Jones for attempting to clarify things to Rade. I have come to the conclusion that it is a total waste of time. I think he is a poster child for Bertrand Russell's quote: "Most people would rather die than think!" And he has utterly no idea why I think that!

 

Have fun -- Dick

[36grit]

Tautological reasoning sounds like "informational structure building". A large part of our individual consiousness is the product of informational particles existing in the expansion plane of our our own reasoning.