RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2397Goal: $5000

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. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Why[edit]

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.pngnarchist

75.173.14.208's edit[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... ? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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[edit]

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)