Talk:Circular reasoning

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon logic.svg

This Logic related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

[edit] Why

Why does circular reasoning redirect to begging the question? I know they are related but I think they are substantially enough difference for there to be two articles. I would say that circular reasoning is the formal fallacy and begging the question is an informal version of the same fallacy. - π 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as a formal fallacy of this sort is possible (reduced to form it is just a tautology, A\rightarrow A), I have seen both terms used, correctly, in both contexts. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought they were different, but apparently not. If they are different, it's subtle. WP redirects circular reasoning to begging the question if that helps, and most sources I can find say that they're the same. Scarlet A.pnggnostic

[edit] 75.173.14.208's edit

  1. The order and magnificence of the world could not have come from nothing

(Often when a person believes a certain argument, they will use words and phrases that imply that what they believe is established irrefutable fact. Therefore,one must be sure that in arguments one doesn't fall into the trap of getting caught up on words or phrases that one personally disagrees with so that one understands clearly what the argument is that is being putting forth. Failing to to do so, one can mistakenly assume the argument is invalid, and in their arrogance, attempt to teach others the same false understanding.

The example presented here is just one poor example that typically results from the author's desire to disprove something that they can't actually disprove any more than they can prove their own opposing argument. Fundamentally speaking, they are psychologically compelled to blindly assert that their perceived opposition is a logical fallacy due to a need to believe that the opposing argument is a logical fallacy. Often this can also stem from a psychologically established superiority complex.) — Unsigned, by: 75.173.14.208 / talk / contribs 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Often when a person believes [....] others the same false understanding.
Great! Relevance?
The example presented here is just one poor example that typically results from the author's desire to disprove something that they can't actually disprove any more than they can prove their own opposing argument.
In this case, we are disproving a very specific argument -- when theists talk about "God's Creation" and use that to "prove" God, they are assuming a creator God even before they prove him.
Fundamentally speaking, they are psychologically compelled to blindly assert that their perceived opposition is a logical fallacy due to a need to believe that the opposing argument is a logical fallacy. Often this can also stem from a psychologically established superiority complex.
And it's more likely that we, not you, are blinded to the facts because... ? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Should I add this as a link or an embed?

Interactive example of circular reasoning.

ClickerClock (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools