“Every previous president would have ended it by now.”

“Biden literally couldn’t do worse.”

  • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Tautologies are statements that are necessarily true by virtue of their construction. In order to show that something is tautological, you must reduce it to an open statement and be able to show that it’s true independent of the variables. Tautologies include “Not Q or Q” and the equivalent “If Q then Q”. Furthermore, stating that something is a tautology implies that you believe it’s true. The last time I encountered someone claiming that something didn’t have predictive value “because it’s a tautology” was a creationist saying the same of evolution, and I realized they had essentially granted their opponent’s conclusion.

    • Sybil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      in a show of good faith, i’m about to break from my usual rhetorical style. i hope you find this explanation helpful


      Duverger’s Law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement is one that cannot be empirically tested or falsified—it’s true by definition. Duverger’s Law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. However, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.

      For example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. This kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. The critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. For Duverger’s Law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. This would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.

    • Sybil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      The last time I encountered someone claiming that something didn’t have predictive value “because it’s a tautology” was a creationist saying the same of evolution

      i don’t know the exact context you’re referencing, but i do know that trying to pigeonhole me with creationists is underhanded.

    • Sybil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      stating that something is a tautology implies that you believe it’s true.

      i believe anyone may claim that the price of a good can be described as the point at which temporal demand met temporal supply, but that doesn’t make it a useful observation. it’s not even disprovable, as there is no way to test it. so there is no reason to believe it’s actually true.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m not getting in another argument with you; you’re dishonest and annoying. I replied to educate, because despite your claims otherwise you’re clearly ignorant.

        • Sybil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          because despite your claims otherwise you’re clearly ignorant.

          saying it doesn’t make it so.

        • Sybil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m not getting in another argument with you; you’re dishonest and annoying.

          i don’t want to argue with you, either. but i do think anyone reading this should know that you are poisoning the well, here.

    • Sybil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      a tautology is also an appropriate term for any post hoc explanation of material facts that gives no insight into how the future will happen.

      duverger’s “law” is storytelling, it’s not science.