The Neolithic Hypothesis

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
<<This is nothing but truisms.>>

In a message dated 4/10/99 8:47:47 PM, whiting at cc.helsinki.fi wrote:
<<You do know what a truism is don't you?  Since there are
indications that you are using a different Webster's than I am,
my Webster's says that a truism is "a self-evident, obvious
truth.">>

I wrote:
<<And they are contradicted by the very fact that...>>

whiting at cc.helsinki.fi replied:
<<And in the next breath you say that "self-evident, obvious
truths" can be contradicted...>>

FYI:
New Oxford Dictionary adds that, in Logic, truism is "a proposition that
states nothing beyond what is implied by any of its terms."

Without addressing ideas like >language changes except when it doesn't<, I
must admit that in the past I've been guilty of a few truisms myself.  But
this is how you can declare a statement a truism and still contradict the
underlying proposition:

>From Uniform Rules for Debate, HDS/GUDS(1962)
"A debator who runs a truism will fail... by jumping to a conclusion made
necessary by virtue of his definition.  A truism will also be irrelevant
because it will not be resolving one of the issues that could otherwise have
been debated."  Since a truism simply restates the premise and is irrelevant,
"a pleading in the alternative ...allows the challenger to both assert an
objection to the truism and [at the same time] attack the underlying
proposition..."

Functionally consistent with Merriam/Webster's a "truth...too obvious for
mention."

Regards,
Steve Long