circular reasoning ~ how do we recognize it?

[Wesley1982]

I think there are often times in conversations and relationships where we resort to circular reasoning and repetitive logic. What are some ways to work around that? thanks.

[DarwidHalim]

For example?

[Wesley1982]

ok,

a) assuming something is true
b) assuming something else is true because of that
c) X must be the reason for Y

d) repeat in a circular manner

[DarwidHalim]

Sorry, I don't get it.

I need a story with circular reasoning.

[Wesley1982]

assuming something is true because of naiv'ete?

[plwk]

I think there are often times in conversations and relationships where we resort to circular reasoning and repetitive logic.

Uh huh like...
Wesley has a beard
Therefore Wesley is beardy

What are some ways to work around that? thanks.

Shave...

[Wesley1982]

I think there are often times in conversations and relationships where we resort to circular reasoning and repetitive logic.

Uh huh like...
Wesley has a beard
Therefore Wesley is beardy

What are some ways to work around that? thanks.

Shave...

Ok, done all shaved.

[catmoon]

Circular reasoning can be easily recognized by careful introspection.

[Quiet Heart]

For example?

As in.....why I can't be a "real" Buddhist here in Thailand.
As for example....what is a real Buddhists?
My Thai wife told me:
There are real Buddhists living here in Thailand.
They are monks, wear monks robes, and are not married.
Many of them speak Thai.

I do not speak Thai.
I am not a monk, I do not wear monks robes, and I am married.
Therefore I can not be a real Buddhist

Buddhists understand Buddhisim and their opinion is taken as of high value when they speak about Buddhism.
Therefore, since as was shown above, I can not be a real Buddhist, my opinion on anything Buddhist is of no value.

[Challenge23]

An example of circular logic from Erik the Viking.

ERIK Well it just seems a little bit crude, that's all.

HELGA What about the killing and looting? That's just as crude, isn't
it?

ERIK Oh well - you've GOT to do them.

HELGA Why? Why have you got to go round killing and looting?

ERIK To pay for the next expedition, of course.

HELGA But that's a circular argument! If the only reason for going on
an expedition is the killing and looting and the only reason
for the killing and looting is to pay for the next expedition,
they cancel each other out.

Much like in the example, the best way to defeat a circular argument is to call it what it is and refuse to accept it. Once someone realizes they are using a circular argument then they hopefully will stop using it. Either that or acknowledge that a root premise of the argument is faith based.

[catmoon]

It is widely recognized that a circular argument proves nothing. It is less widely recognized that if any of the statements in a circular argument can be proven independently, then all the statements in the circular argument are proven as well.

[zerwe]

Circular arguments prove nothing. Look for proof that sounds something like "it is because it is."

Pointing out circular arguments that prove nothing: (grub byed grub bya dang mtshung pas ma grub pa). A circular argument arises when the proof that the opponent is trying to use is the same as what he needs to prove. In other words, the proof is not yet proven, so it cannot be used as the basis of deriving another proof. For example, it would be like saying, “this is a head because it is a head”. This is a big mistake, but it is common for many philosophers to make it.--
Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche – Madhyamakavatara – 1996 Chapter 6 – 85

Shaun

[catmoon]

Circular reasoning is not always so simple as that.

If you have a series of statements like


If A then B;
If B then C;
If C then D;
If D then A;

What you have is a circular argument. The examples given above are merely tautologies, the trivial case of a circular argument.

By itself the circular argument proves nothing. However, if one of its elements can be proven, the rest all follow too.

A tautology could be framed as

If A then A;

and it also conforms to the general rule in that if A can be proved it must be true, and then all the statements in the argument are true. However, like the more general case, the circular argument by itself proves nothing. It requires external proof of at least one of its statements.

[plwk]