Talk:Circular reasoning/Archives/2013

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)

Often when people use such circular arguments, it is in disguised form. For example, I quite often come across a stance in legal matters that, "X is wrong because it's against the law, and it's against the law because it's wrong", but it is usually expressed in a form like the following: "Activity X is illegal. People shouldn't break the law. Therefore it is wrong for them to do X. Things that are wrong should be illegal. Therefore X should be illegal." As a result it can actually be quite hard to spot in practice. Tws45 (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Newton and Relativity Circular Reasoning Examples

The best examples of circular reasoning (other than the nature of an encyclopedic reference such as Wikipedia) would be Newton's Laws (inertia and gravity) and Einstein's theory of relativity.

Newton provided a mathematical basis for the simple idea that it takes a larger amount of force to move more massive objects from rest or to alter their trajectories, and for the first time quantified the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. He invented calculus to more precisely define the interrelationships between position, velocity, and acceleration of masses, but references to length (and optionally time) in his theory always involves circular reasoning.

Einstein was able to build on the work of Newton, Lorentz and the null result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment to demonstrate that length and time were not invariants, that the only universal "invariant" is the speed of light, and that nothing really makes sense in physics at higher velocities until this fundamental and relative relationship is taken into account. All of this was accomplished without reference to what a length (or time interval, or electromagnetic radiation) actually is, so it actually involved a greater amount circular reasoning than Newton's. Nevertheless, the equivalence of mass and energy falls out of this relationship like mathematical magic, and without knowing very much at all about the nature of a length, a time interval, or a quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

The incidental knowledge our senses provide us about sizes, shapes, movement, weight, color, sound, texture, fragrance, etc., are the things our minds collect, reason and create ideas about. Because ideas are neither material nor infallible, and because our finite minds and the range of ideas that can be created from our senses are also finite, circular reasoning pretty much encompasses everything we mere mortals will ever know.

Newton and Einstein are remembered precisely because they dealt so effectively with the most fundamental elements of their universe with their manifestly finite minds. Just because all of our reasoning is mostly circular does not mean it has no intrinsic value, but this is the main reason the human race is, frankly, boring me silly. Does anyone else have this issue?

None of these ideas are original; I've simply collected them (from thousands of circular references) in one convenient place for you. Danshawen (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC) danshawen

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)

The article currently says that "Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning". So far as I can see from the above discussion, in modern usage circular reasoning IS begging the question. What is the special case here; what restrictions apply to the definition of begging the question that don't apply to the definition of circular reasoning? Zinios (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2013 (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)

So far as I understand, Aristotle's usage of "convertible" terms, which he uses to construct the circular proofs and to claim they are valid, would be considered a fallacy nowadays. I'm not an expert though. I'm looking at The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I would agree that the two articles' leads describe the same thing. All the examples given on the Begging the question page also seem to be examples of circular reasoning. The only reason I can see not to merge the articles is different historical or alternative usages - for instance "Begging the question" is now often used to mean "Raising the question". I still think it would be reasonable to merge these articles though. Zinios (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WIFOM

I've been playing Mafia lately and there's this piece of interesting game theory about recursive reasoning. It's called "WIFOM" short for "Wine In Front Of Me" named after a scene in the movie "The Princess Bride". Basically, WIFOM is that recursive reasoning that goes on when you think about a persons reasons for doing something and then you can think "but maybe that's what he wants me to think, so I'll do the opposite... but maybe that's what he wants me to think so I'll not do the opposite". This article here probably has a better explanation and some good examples. Basically I was wondering if this is something that is mentioned anywhere on any psychological part of Wikipedia and if not, I think it would be nice to include it somewhere, somehow. I find it to be a very interesting paradoxical thing. SorteKanin (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

From the description on that site ("my opponent can do one of two things, will she do the obvious one or the less obvious one?"), isn't this just bluffing? --McGeddon (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an example of circular reasoning to me. I think the mafiawiki site is wrong when it calls this circular reasoning, and perhaps closer when it calls it "recursive reasoning". It's also called second-guessing or triple-guessing (etc) your opponent. No circular reasoning is involved until you make an assumption and then justify it using the results of your assumption. Such a discussion might be more relevant to the Rock-paper-scissors page - you might be interested in the strategies referenced there. Zinios (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)