Talk:Circular reasoning/Archives/2012

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)

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 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)