Naming Conventions

back http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

Subscripts - simulate Greek lexicon in English
The idea for subscripts came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox The subscript x is used to denote that a user of the symbols design, pattern, random, evolve etc. hasn't documented in what type of PatternOrDesign sense the words are being used or that user of these semantic tools don't know what he is trying to say. In English the word "lovex" alone doesn't tell us what type of lovex is implied - [(Agape, Phile or Eros (Eros is never used in the bible)]. By using subscripts we thus simulate the Greek Lexicon.

Tautology
The first four types of tautologies are listed in that order because most people of conflicting world views would agree on their definitions. From five to eight is wide op for debate and one's world view would influence whether the definitions are valid.
 * 'Necessary truth', axiom or logical validity Tautology1.
 * Tautological expression Tautology2. Also known as a Pleonasm.
 * Rhetorical tautology Tautology3
 * Logical tautology Tautology4
 * Truthiness-tautology or hidden tautology, combines a truism with saying the same thing twice Tautology5
 * Strawtology Tautology6
 * Questology Tautology7
 * DoubleTautology Tautology8Tautology used in such a way that the PatternOrDesign distinction isn't clear.

Evolution

 * Evolution1 Used by CharlesKingsley in his interpretation of Darwin(1863) in the "....absolute empire of accident...." or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness sense.
 * Evolution2. The sentence "...the engineer evolved the bridge...." would be in the design sense as theists understand design from their PatternOrDesign dichotomy world view.
 * Evolution3 would be the sense HoWard1, Wilkins and Dawkins uses it, they reject the PatternOrDesign dichotomy. HoWard1 would say "...the engineer evolved the bridge...." but means by that ".... designx is subset of patternx....." which could mean that all design is just "apparent design" because the mind is an illusion created by chemical reactions in the brain. Dawkins states that where some see design it actually apparant design. We could also say that some see a pattern whichis only an apparant pattern.
 * Evolution4 - Wilkins uses natural, rarified , ordinary, non-complex and simple design (http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PatternOrDesign#Wilkins_on_rarified_.2C_simple.2C_natural_design), whether in Evolution1 , Evolution2 or EvolutionNo idea what I am trying to sayisn't clear.
 * Evolution5 Rejects 1 to 4.
 * Evolution6a Evolutionist that accepts Evolution3 but rejects the multi-universe theory. Nick Keighley from the Wikipedia selection article thread.
 * Evolution6b Evolutionist that accepts Evolution3 and accepts the multi-universe theory. RichardDawkins most probably.
 * Evolution7a The Latin Evolvere sense which meant an unrolling action in the design sense. As in the carpet was unrolled by a person, intent, volition or will.
 * Evolution7b The Latin Evolvere sense which meant an unrolling action in the pattern sense. As in the carpet unrolled by itself after a tornado struck.
 * Evolution7c The Latin Evolvere sense which meant an unrolling action in the HoWard1 sense.

EvolVere - Ontology or history of the word must be explored. At http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#What_does_Common_Ancestor_mean.3F Wilkins stated that if you read RichardDawkins you are "...guaranteed to get it wrong..." , thus we should subdivide Evolution3 into Evolution3a and Evolution3b. We have hundreds of Aristotelians at universities using the symbol evolution, what they mean though could be anything.

From a YEC theist perspective there is only a pattern(Evolution1) or design(Evolution2) distinction. He believes it like he believes the sun is shining and can't therefore be expected to "suspend" his religious metaphysical beliefs and enter HumptyDumpty space when engaging with non-theists. The theist and non-theist inhabit separate language realities, but the non-theist are using symbols such as evolution, selection which before 1859 was used by theists to project their world view in terms of a pattern(Evolution1) or design(Evolution2) dichotomy. With the result that it has become impossible to determine what YEC, ID and atheist apollogetics movements are trying to say.

DavidBerlinski, Ken Ham, Dembski and Dawkins are deriving substantial revenue from books and seminars making it a disincentive to clarify what they mean with tautology, selection, design and evolution, since the words themselves have no meaning. A great way to make money from selling books is to have the YEC, ID and Atheist side never define their terms so one can't say whether either side was right or wrong after finishing "The design inference" by Dembski, resulting in the searching soul buying yet another book such as "The Devils delusion" by DavidBerlinski or "The God delusion" by Dawkins.

The evolutionists3 of today characterize CharlesKingsley, JohnBurroughs and HenryFairfieldOsborn as not being "true evolutionists" or not understanding the concept, which is the No True Scotsman fallacy. These early authors around the time of Darwin were type evolutionists1. They still had some vague notion that man descended from something with long teeth and a tail after a battle for survival, but their argumentation scheme is rejected today by evolutionists3.

Their argument might have been erroneous but they were still evolutionistsx. From Gandalf the wizard,Sumerian pagans, Empedocles, Aristotle, New York times - NyTimesNaturalSelection, Economist - TautologiesInEconomist right up to RichardDawkins they all employ the same TauTology3 argumentation narrative within a fire/water, ying/yang battle for survival dichotomy in science, sociology, economics, spirituality , religion and politics. Any conclusion from such whether Evolution1, 2 or 3 is a non-sequitur. Evolutionary process, Evolvability, Developmental plasticity, phenotypic accommodation, selection, natural are but an ever expanding lexicon of symbol salad that enables the Sumerian pagan mythology to embedded into whatever would be the latest discoveries, because the Aristotelian type TauTology3 narrative was formulated in such a way that it could explain everything past, present and future. This includes genes as a cybernetic abstraction or physical molecule. Nothing past,present or future can refute the indisputable way Aristotle doomed our whole human existence to tautological thinking. See George Gilder

"phenotypic accommodation" are quasi-intellectual, pseudo-sophisticated terms used to represent the same Aristotelian tautological banality for a different era. Many scientists have two religious belief systems one on Sunday at church and the other one on Monday and they tunnel through a semantic wormhole between the two by invoking the HumptyDumpty principle. Trouble with this is that the Lord Jesus Christ will remove their names from the book of life if they invoke the HumptyDumpty principle their religion is futile, God demands that one have consistent belief system on Sunday and Monday when writing that journal paper. If you want to go to heaven your academic career is over even before it started. Your decision is between your immortal soul and inserting "natural selection" into that paper on transition matrices in the biophysics journal. The Evolution3 adherents don't care what you believe on Sunday as long you write that the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog space got naturaled on Monday. (VerbingNouns). In the same manner it was allowed for the early Xtians to worship Christ as long as they also said "Caesar is Lord".

The denial of faith is much more subtle today. Xtians are expected to write that paper in terms of the Atomist dichotomy sense. All facets from mathematics like Conway's "Game of Life" are presented in this manner.

Evolutionary processes
The Arsitotelians have an ever expanding lexicon as with the bulleted terms. But because words and terms don't have any meaning(SentencesHaveNoMeaning) they are but different symbols to represent a concept in either the PatternOrDesign sense.
 * Evolutionary process-x Force, mechanism or process.
 * Evolutionary principle x Principle, mechanism or process?
 * Evolvability x
 * Developmental plasticity x
 * phenotypic accommodation x
 * genetic accommodation x
 * Punctuated evolution x Confuses a perception of scale with mechanism
 * Phenotypic innovation x Who did the innovatingx?
 * facilitated variation x - Who did the facilitatingx?
 * Epigenetic x
 * Inheritance x
 * multi-level selection x

Design

 * Design1 Design in the pattern sense
 * Design2 Design in the theist PatternOrDesign dichotomy sense
 * Design3 Design in the Evolution3 sense.

Gift
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Tautology
 * Gift1 Unreserved as in Greek type Agape love gift. The sense John 3:16 would use gift or gave.
 * Gift2 Bundled with expectation of reciprocating behavior. Love in the Greek Phile sense.
 * Gift3 Other
 * Gift4 Other

Fitness
Word used by PierreMaupertuis 1759, Treviranus and Spencer 1851. A reader in 1858 undestood "Fitness" as a synonym for "suitability" as in somebody being suitable for marriage. Neither Darwin nor Spencer could do calculus, their idea had nothing to do with algorithms or "fitness functions". Today in machine learning, involving advanced calculus the same word is used but not the same idea. Spencer could not have solved a problem he couldn't define. Fitness is a good example of materialist tying themselves up in a semantic knot: Etymological_fallacy,Polysemy, Equivocation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas had a belief in "spontaneous generation" which he got from the works of Aristotle. Fitness is another word for Aristotle's concept of "internal spontaneity". Chamber's VesTiges and Fletcher's Rudiments of physiology described experiments where spiders magically poofed into existence on the ends of battery terminals. It was in this speculative context, that "fitness" was used. The concepts have changed from 1759, but the same word is used, leading to a mental health problem in society as they assign an actual meaning to 'fitness'.


 * Fitness1 Aristotle's concept of "internal spontaneity"
 * Fitness2 PierreMaupertuis 1759 used Fitness for the same Aristotelian concept.
 * Fitness3 Spencer(1851) concept of "suitability" in a social, culture context such as suitability for marriage.
 * Fitness4 LuCretius(50 BC) - "...combats the notion that the constitution of nature has been ... determined by Intelligent Design. The inter-action of the atoms throughout infinite time rendered all manner of combinations possible. Of these the fit ones persisted, while the unfit ones disappeared...." interpreted 1874 by JohnTyndall. In other words LuCretius meant "..... those with internal spontaneity persisited, while those without spontaneity disappeared. It was this same "spontaneity" or "fitness" that Fletcher and Chamber's invoked in their writings about spiders spontaneisly coming into existence.
 * Fitness5 2010, Huge confusion, nobody knows what is going on. Berlinksi wrote in Black Mischief ".... if pigs had wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters, on what scale of porcine fitness would they be...? " Aristole's used "internal spontaneity" more in a type of Yin_and_yang dichotomy sense.

Definitions: Some definitions in text books.
 * Fitness is defined as the genetic contribution of an individual to succeeding generations, relative to the contributions of other individuals in the population (Raven & Johnson, 1992).

Notes: Replace "genetic contributions here " with "atoms" to trace back this sentence to the Atomists.

rephrase: :Fitness is defined as the good atoms contribution to succeeding atoms, relative to the contributions of the bad atoms in the population of atoms.

Language

 * Language1 In the sense that consciousness is a chemical reaction in the brain. They assign actual meanings to words. Can't explain where the number 7 will be when the last conscious being dies.
 * Language2 Information is neither matter nor energy YEC view. Words have no meaning only ideas have meaning. Such ideas must be in either the axiomatic - mechanistic, pattern-design, synonym - antonym sense etc.
 * Language3 Information is neither matter nor energy ID view..

John Wilkin's usage of 'design'

 * natural design3
 * rarified design3
 * ordinary design3
 * non-complex design3
 * simple design3

The symbol Selection(which has no meaning)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011_1.html
 * Natural selection (Darwin meant natural preservation1 - EpiCurus)
 * Artificial selection3 or should that be 2?
 * Unconscious selection (OoS)
 * Blind selection Kenneth Miller says NS is blind
 * Stupid selection Selectionx that is blind and also stupid
 * Non-Stupid selection Selectionx that is blind but not stupid
 * Principle of Finality (OoS)
 * Cumulative selection x
 * Single-step selection x
 * Group selection
 * Chance selection
 * Random selection
 * Selection at random
 * Strong selection
 * Weak selection
 * natural selection3
 * rarified selection3
 * ordinary selection3
 * non-complex selection3
 * simple selection3

Natural Selection acts
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/EpiCurus#Darwin_on_natural_selection_acts
 * acts1 pattern or absolute empire of accident sense As in: the tornado acted on the house destroying it. Tornado's don't have intent even though 'acted' was used.
 * acts2 Design sense within the PatternOrDesign view The engineer acted on the boat, molding it.

Environment

 * environment1 Physical location.
 * environment2 Condition of existence, mental state, no physical location. You are not adapted to your condition of existence because it is already described by your attributes, neither can you be better adapted.

Aristotelian

 * Aristotelian1 As Wilkins would use it, yet to be defined.
 * Aristotelian2 Pending, depends on whether an author is * Evolution5 etc.
 * Aristotelian3 Proxy for rhetorical tautological arguments.

Random

 * Random1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
 * Random2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample
 * Random3 ??

Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random". Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since "random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on the intent. Under the rubric of "random" we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample and many more concepts.

Place five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Do a "selection at random" or "probability selection" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample by placing your hand inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The whole exercise is steering towards a purposeful goal.

The phrase selection at random represents design, volition or intent even though it has the word 'random' in it. An idea needs to be decoded as one uses the symbols "pattern" and "design" in their relevant contexts given the premise: Mind before matter or matter before mind. Either premise will forever be one of faith. http://raherrmann.com/ calls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness a strong delusion. Pure randomness doesn't exist in mathematics, it is a metaphysical position.

Wikipedia evolution article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution#cite_note-Futuyma-0 "...Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations...."

Is change being used in the pattern or designs sense by Futuyama(2005) who was given as the citation. Why isn't Darwin being referenced with his usage of evolution in the "...absolute empire of accident ...."

What it means to get naturaled from YEC
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/015c3069fc289984/60eedbbed97959a4?rnum=281&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F015c3069fc289984%3F#doc_42b8b484fd88934c

Here is the confusion over what it means to get naturaled from the creationists side, http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/256/ "....Michael Behe has upset the comfort of the Darwinists by highlighting a design attribute that he terms "irreducible complexity." Consider, as an example, the familiar household mousetrap in figure 2.

This simple device consists of five essential parts: (1) a platform which holds (2) a hammer driven by (3) a spring when restrained by (4) a holding bar until released by (5) a catch. This basic design has defied attempts to simplify it further, or to reduce its complexity. The significant feature is that with only four of the five parts one cannot catch 4/5ths as many mice! Its function depends on each of its essential elements, each of which involve substantial precision in their specification. "Natural selection" cannot operate until there is something to select from....."

"........"Natural selection" cannot operate until there is something to select from....."

Is operate being used in the PatternOrDesign sense?


 * The doctor couldn't operate until there were a patient to select from. operate used in the design sense
 * The tornado couldn't operate until the air pressure system was right. this is a bit lame and incorrect example but hope you get the point