TauTology

concept
A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the propositions are guaranteed or that the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed by defining a term in terms of another self referentially. Consequently the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it Unfalsifiable. It is formulating a description in a way that masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived. The statement "If you can't find something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is tautological. It is true and can't be disputed, but conveys no useful information. As a physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board was full of bullseyes could be called a "tautological" game. The player would not lose. Any argument containing a tautology is flawed and must be considered a Logical fallacy.

A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not a game. Mathematical equations, such as E = mc2, are not tautologies. The terms on both sides of the equation are defined elsewhere independently. The equal sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather equal to, establishing an equivalence. It doesn't define one term in term's of another. Acceleration and mass independently don't equal force but their product MA as derived by Newton does, hence the equation F=MA isn't a tautology. X=X could be a logical validity,mathematical redundancy or a logical tautology depending on the pragmatics or motive behind it. A Truism is defined as something which is true by definition, it is not a tautology but can be reformulated in a tautological manner in order to disguise the truistic nature of the original statement and underlying Premises. The dividing line between a Truism and an observation is pragmatics. Neither is Begging the question a tautology. A Truism is embedded inside an argument in an attempt to disguise that the conclusion based on the argument's core is a Non sequitur (logic). The sun shines is an observation, it becomes a Truism if used in an argument to influence the hearer to come to a conclusion which doesn't follow logically from the core of the argument. The truism in such a case should be considered a Red herring (logical fallacy) an irrelevant piece of trivia employed as a rhetorical smoke screen. Tautologies and Truisms are used together as a rhetorical device in a deceptive attempt to argue for a view if it isn't possible to independently establish the real reason for the viewpoint elsewhere. The seeming complexity of such an argument might comes across as well reasoned but is really just the articulation of a world view that can't be Falsified. Rhetorical tautologies are a synonymous play with words that alludes to the same fact but in doing so presents itself as an explanation giving the illusion of uncovering the actual reason for the observation. An example of this word play would be the following tautological proposition: favorable traits become more common and unfavorable traits become less common. The word favorable and the term more common are a synonymous play on words that alludes to the same observation that traits increased but it doesn't tell us the actual reason the traits become more common. Furthermore the Premise of the tautological statement must be questioned because it might contain circularity into which a Truism was embedded and the tautological reformulation of this Truism was an attempt to disguise the original circular reasoning or other Logical fallacies.

Identify tautology
Identify the terms in the sentence used in the synonymous sense. Take any of the synonymous terms are reformulate the sentence as a question:

???? fix garbled. Other than noting the attribute to which syn1 refers how does syn2 was the same attribute to which syn2 alludes independently measured ?

Tautological expressions and propositions
The tautological expression (an unmarried bachelor) contains a redundant word ("unmarried"), but has meaning and can be used to form a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This proposition is not a rhetorical tautology because the intent isn't to deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily language verbosity. The tautological proposition (all bachelors are unmarried) stated in a class on formal logic theory on the other hand, gives us no information that is not already contained in the definition of the word "bachelor". The Pragmatics or context with 'unmarried bachelor' by the user would determine whether it is a tautology or language verbosity. In an academic setting such as a peer reviewed journal propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an independent explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a setting would be a tautological proposition and unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech is acceptable because of the pragmatics with it. The dividing line between a tautological proposition and expression is pragmatics.

Example of a tautological proposition
The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving  extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy.
 * S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age", Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.

Question: How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except by noting that the groups disappeared?

Gould formulated the proposition so that it cannot be disputed: "..certain groups were extinction prone because they disappeared.." But the real reason for their extinction needs be derived independently elsewhere. Nothing is explained by stating that because they were extinction prone they disappeared, their disappearance implies that they were extinction prone. Extinction and disappear are a synonymous play with words that alludes to the same fact but masquerades as an explanation.

Darwin on propositions which cannot be disputed
There are key passages dealing with Darwin's concept of natural selection where he motivates for it by using propositions which cannot be disputed.


 * OoS For if each part is liable to individual variations at all ages, and the variations tend to be inherited at a corresponding or earlier age--propositions which cannot be disputed--then the instincts and structure of the young could be slowly modified as surely as those of the adult; and both cases must stand or fall together with the whole theory of natural selection.


 * OoS That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor.  Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, that all parts of the organisation and instincts offer, at least individual differences--that there is a struggle for existence leading to the  preservation of profitable deviations of structure or instinct--and, lastly, that gradations in the state of perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind.   The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed. 

The words preservation, profitable, perfection, perfected and good are a synonymous play with words that alludes to same fact as shown by reducing the passage it to its core proposition which cannot be disputed: Species are engaged in a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of  those profitable structures that allowed them to survive.


 * OoS:IF under changing conditions of life organic beings present individual differences in almost every part of their structure, and this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to their geometrical rate of increase, a severe struggle for life at some age, season, or year, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of life, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variations had ever occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same manner as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, or the survival of the fittest, I have called Natural Selection. It leads to the improvement of each creature in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life, and consequently, in most cases, to what must be regarded as an advance in organisation.

Question: Other than noting the offspring survived how was their fitness measured?

Tautologies from Aristotle
(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2):
 * OoS:"So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish."

The passage reduces to: Things appropriately constituted were preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished. Appropriately constituted and preserved are a synonymous play with words that alludes to the same fact but it doesn't independently derive the actual reason something was preserved.

Is survival of the fittest a tautology
Try and contact Herbert Spencer and if you find him ask: Other than noting the species survived how was their fitness measured?

Examples of tautological expressions
A common form of tautology or improvised poetry depending on the Pragmatics is using two forms of the same word in the same construction. E.g., the British supermarket Tesco sells a brand of lemon thyme which it describes as having an "aromatic aroma". Synonyms may also produce a tautology; "free gift" is tautologous because a gift, by definition, is something given without charge. Other such examples of tautology include "sufficiently adequate" and "new innovation". In phrases, tautology is present in sayings such as "I can see it with my own eyes", "suddenly, without warning" and "forward planning"/"planning ahead". Another common example is "reason why" which contains repetition because a "reason" is already by definition a description of why something happens. Compare; "This is the reason why it happens", "This is the reason it happens" and "This is why it happens".