Talk:Circular reasoning

Circular?

The example given is weak. Not all dishonest politicians are elected, and there may exist honest candidates who do not get elected. The example is a better demonstration of the compositional fallacy. A better example: "Johnny is honest, because Johnny said so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.87.52.25 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the example is weak - the offered example isn't ideal either though. Any pro editors around? 62.255.248.225 (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

By not using sources or outside references, this article on circular reasoning must be true. Mattyleg (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The cirlular reasoning isn`t fallacy. Check Analytical first II, 57b and following.--Ammonio (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember the heated debate on this over at the Begging the Question article. The most common contemporary use of "circular reasoning" in the UK is the "arguing in a circle" definition covered in this article, as given for example in the Oxford English Dictionary, but the problem, as I recall Ammonio informing me, is that Aristotle had a rather different definition of "circular reasoning" (if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C, and vice versa, which isn't fallacy). The "arguing in a circle" definition is often incorrectly attributed to Aristotle, when in reality it developed afterwards (the OED's earliest cite is from 1646). Tws45 (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The example doesn't even seem to demonstrate circular reasoning... it's halfway there. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office can be reasonably supported by the "proof" that all politicians are untrustworthy. The proof can be supported by evidence of every politician performing acts that are objectively untrustworthy. It only becomes circular if the proof is supported by re-emphasizing the premise. As stated in the article, the argument does not look circular. --ALapeno (talk) 13:35, 08 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.34 (talk)

I agree, it isn't a particularly clear-cut example. It's taken from another website. A more obviously circular argument on the same topic would be, for example, "Only an untrustworthy person would run for office, because we know that politicians are untrustworthy. How do we know that all politicians are untrustworthy? Easy- it's because we know that only an untrustworthy person would run for office!". I actually come up against circular reasoning quite a lot when I question rules and regulations. Here are a couple that I've come up against quite a bit in heated conversations:

A.  I don't think A should be illegal.
B.  A should remain illegal, because it's wrong.  
A.  Why is it wrong?
B.  It's against the law.  The law is the law, and people shouldn't break the law.

A.  I think this policy is unreasonable as it punishes the many because of the few.
B.  When a minority abuse something you have to punish the many because of the few, because the minority have to spoil it for everybody else,
and that's life.  Thus, a minority have made this measure necessary.

The circularity is disguised by the choice of different wording, but in a nutshell, the first argument states that "A is wrong because it's against the law, and it's against the law because it's wrong", while in the second argument, "you have to do this", "it's a necessary evil" and "that's life" all mean the same thing, so the premise is used in support of itself (twice!).

I'm sure there are plenty of other good examples out there. This website has three better examples than the one currently given: http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm Tws45 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

More clarity, please

There seems to be a lot of confusion between "Begging the Question" (BTQ) and "Circular Reasoning" (CR). The article says "[circular reasoning] is fallacious due to a flawed logical structure and not the individual falsity of an unstated hidden co-premise as begging the question is." I don't think BTQ is due to an unstated hidden premise, but rather is due to the fact that one of the premises is assumed.

In my view, CR comes in when you first take a BTQ argument (A => B, where A is assumed), and try to prove the assumed premise by using the conclusion (B => A), thus making a circle (A => B => A).

I think the article should break this down into a more rigorous and basic form. The politician example may be the most basic form (A => A), but it is weak because it is not fully explained.

Does anyone have a good source that explains the nuances between BTQ and CR? TWCarlson (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. look for Aristotle.Prior Analytics II,57b,18 to read about Circular reasoning.

Then, look for Aristotle.Prior Analytics II,64b,28 to read about Petitio principii.

But if Tws45 said: The "arguing in a circle" definition is often incorrectly attributed to Aristotle, when in reality it developed afterwards (the OED's earliest cite is from 1646)... He has not read Organon--Ammonio (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The term began to be used when Latin was losing its importance in the cultural environment of England in 1646. Is this likely?--Ammonio (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Prior Analytics II,57b,18

"Circular and reciprocal proof means proof by means of the conclusion, i.e. by converting one of the premisses simply and inferring the premiss which was assumed in the original syllogism: e.g. suppose it has been necessary to prove that A belongs to all C, and it has been proved through B; suppose that A should now be proved to belong to B by assuming that A belongs to C, and C to B-so A belongs to B: but in the first syllogism the converse was assumed, viz. that B belongs to C. Or suppose it is necessary to prove that B belongs to C, and A is assumed to belong to C, which was the conclusion of the first syllogism, and B to belong to A but the converse was assumed in the earlier syllogism, viz. that A belongs to B. In no other way is reciprocal proof possible."

Prior Analytics II,64b,34:

"Now begging the question is none of these: but since we get to know some things naturally through themselves, and other things by means of something else (the first principles through themselves, what is subordinate to them through something else), whenever a man tries to prove what is not self-evident by means of itself, then he begs the original question. This may be done by assuming what is in question at once; it is also possible to make a transition to other things which would naturally be proved through the thesis proposed, and demonstrate it through them, e.g. if A should be proved through B, and B through C, though it was natural that C should be proved through A: for it turns out that those who reason thus are proving A by means of itself"

--Ammonio (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't intend to say that the term "circular reasoning" first came into use in 1646, rather that the "arguing in a circle" fallacy definition for it (as given in this Wiki article, the Oxford English Dictionary and various internet sources, but at odds with Aristotle's definition given in Prior Analytics above) has a cite in the OED going as far back as 1646. In essence, Aristotle's original meaning and today's common usage appear rather at odds- which is why we get the notion that circular reasoning isn't fallacy (using Aristotle's definition) and that it is (by today's common usage). Tws45 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, then we must point out what it has meant originally, and what people mean by circular reasoning today with a link to begging the question. isn´t it?--Ammonio (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Tws45 (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Mutual contradiction

• The article Circular reasoning states that circular reasoning is a logical fallacy; the article Begging the question states that, at least according to Aristotle, circular reasoning is not considered fallacy (see Note 1).
• Although both articles agree that circular reasoning and begging the question are different, the definitions in the respective leads are essentially equivalent ("a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises" versus "a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise").

 --Lambiam 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the reader is expected to distinguish between “logical fallacy” and “formal logical fallacy” based on the pleonism “formal logical”. However, the qualification should be on the former (no pun intended), where the loose, casual, sense of “logical” and “fallacy” are being used. Contradiction is as good a tag as any I suppose: “informal logic” is a bit of an oxymoron, perhaps non-rhetors don't fancy it… These are both from Aristotle and traditionally it's called rhetoric. If there's no formal/logical error, it's valid. It's not uncommon to find lists of so-called “fallacies” attempting to rubbish various arguments in general, but hand-waving sophistry won't demonstrate a form of argument is invalid in principle, (that a false conclusion can be derived from true premises).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The article Begging the Question does not contradict the article Circular reasoning. A note at the bottom regarding Aristotle's interpretation does but not the article itself. Therefore the placing of the tag was unjustified and I am removing the Mutual contradiction tag from both articles. --TimL (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I have proposed that this article be merged with begging the question. I have given reasons on the other talk page; please read and respond there. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Better examples

Once again, I understand what circular reasoning is, but the exmple is too unreal to make sense to most people.

Can we have other examples please that are likely to come up in real discussion, perhaps even examples used by promonent speakers. Im finding thiese articles on fallacies to be a bit under par.

An easy example I can think of is: 'Christianity is true, because the bible is true, the bible is true because christianity is true' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.211.181 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Better example?

This rock is 400 million years old because...———→ This fossil is 400 million years old because the rock which contained it is 400 million years old. ——→ This rock is 400 million years old because the fossils contained in it are 400 million years old. ———→ This fossil is 400 million years old because... (From a geology professor.) Traumatic (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)