Talk:Circular reasoning

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. 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. 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.

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.) 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Relevance?
 * 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.
 * And it's more likely that we, not you, are blinded to the facts because... ? 18:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * And it's more likely that we, not you, are blinded to the facts because... ? 18:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's more likely that we, not you, are blinded to the facts because... ? 18:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Should I add this as a link or an embed?
Interactive example of circular reasoning.

ClickerClock (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fun site, thanks for the link! Though, while the argument presented certainly is fallacious — it doesn't actually look circular to me?


 * All cats have four legs (All X have P).
 * Dogs do not exist (There are no Y).
 * This dog is a cat (This Y is an X).
 * The above seems to me more like a non-sequitur. I imagine that the intended circularity was supposed to stem from both cats and dogs being four-legged animals? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Circles
Is 'learning about the geometry of circles' circular reasoning? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Reasoning about circles is not the same as circular reasoning. You make a good pun, however. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I like it too - but would reasoning about squares be "square reasoning"? Unfortunately, probably not.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a taste for harmless puns (see the one on the 'Being of light talk page) which makes up for the absence of snark. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And is 'reasons for crop circles' another appropriate non sequitur? 127.0.0.1 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Crop circles, reasons for their existence - same relationship to circular reasoning as 'mathematical reasoning to understand circles.' 127.0.0.1 (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

These are two different fallacies.
They are. They need to be split up into separate articles. For example:


 * (i) if Gettier-type counterexamples are avoidable, at least in principle, then the tripartite account can become adequate, at least in principle; (ii) Gettier-type counterexamples are avoidable, at least in principle; therefore (iii) the tripartite account can become adequate, at least in principle.

That's an example of begging the question. "If one could prove (ii) that the counter examples are indeed avoidable, one would have proved that the tripartite account can become adequate, thanks to (i), but (i) is acceptable only if one already assumes (iii), that is, only if one already believes that the tripartite approach is a step in the right direction, but this is precisely the point in question." (see here for my source, pp. 61-62). Circular reasoning is the fallacy that's addressed well in this article. Begging the question is not addressed. 14:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I always felt like "begging the question" was merely the logical fallacy that is represented in formalization of circular reasoning. That they're not "different" in any absolute sense, just usage.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Circular reasoning is like "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true". As I understand it, begging the question is closely related but not the same thing. Begging the question assumes the truth of the conclusion and then constructs an argument that proves the conclusion. In my example above, (iii) is already accepted as true, so (i) and (ii) are created in order to prove that (iii). However, this isn't a persuasive argument because there isn't any real evidence for the truth of (iii), we've just constructed something that makes it true. 16:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Bible is the word of God
I've seen this so many times. It's infuriating.
 * 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now that I've been here for a while I know that. Doublethink (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)