Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

In the fifth century in India, astronomer Aryabhata contemplated the fact that the moon can hide the whole of the sun during a solar eclipse. The two have the same visible size from the earth, then, although it was clear to Aryabhata that the sun was a good deal larger. He discussed this in a dispassionate mathematical way, one which offended the religious sensibilities of the day. Vedic scripture suggests that the moon is farther from the earth than the sun is, which Aryabhata realized was plainly wrong. Indeed, another great scholar of the day,  Brahmagupta, who wrote both on scripture and on astronomy, both criticized Aryabhata for his impiety, AND then proceeded to build on Aryanhata's work in his own astronomical writings. There the matter lay until the 11th century, when Alberuni, an Iranian/Islamic scholar of the golden age of such scholars, became fascinated with Indian culture and history.   He made this comment: "We shall not argue with him [Brahmagup...

The idea of a "tautology" and especially of its use in philosophical debate, has bugged me for years. Let me express my analytical (or synthetic) reaction here and see if I get an illuminating response. Many of those who dislike the idea of evolution, or Darwinian evolution anyway, make a point about the nature of the alleged mechanism. The notion that evolution works by "the survival of the fittest" can not, they say, be a substantive insight at all because it is a tautology. The fittest are defined by survival, and then survival is attributed to their fitness. An obvious circle. Likewise, those who dislike the notion of market efficiency make the same point, though they may not recognize its similarity. They say that the notion of efficiency is defined by what the market does, and then the market is said to be efficient. An obvious and invalidating circle! Another example: those who argue that a God is necessary, and must be postulated even if His existence ca...