Talk:Circular reasoning/Archives/2014

Circular Reasoning and Begging the Question (again)

I know this has been discussed before, and I may be a little late to the party, but I'd like to weigh in. In modern usage, begging the question and circular reasoning refer to the same thing. There is a minority usage that takes BTQ to refer to arguments containing assertions that simply lack evidence, but this is nowhere near as common. The distinction made by Aristotle and quoted above no longer makes much sense: it seems to relate specifically to syllogistic reasoning, while BTQ/CR can occur in the context of any kind of deductive reasoning. The reference in the article (ref 4, Freeman) does nothing to explain the difference, and in my opinion the content of that reference is so misleading and uncomprehending that it should be removed. BTQ/CR is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Some references for this are: Garner: A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1995), "Fallacy" in Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Walton: Informal Logic (2008). Dezaxa (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Good points, please be WP:BOLD keeping in mind they don't just mean the same thing. :) Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)