Circular reasoning

2011-11-17T16:13:04Z

Thorist:

{{merge from|Beg the question}}
'''Circular reasoning''' is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by assertion]], often used by [[Atheist|Atheists]] and [[evolutionist]]s in which one uses a conclusion of an argument as a [[premise]] to that same argument, that is, ending where it began. This is also known as ''petitio principii'' or ''begging the question.''

It is considered invalid and therefore is not permitted by the rules of [[formal logic]].

== An analysis ==
The simplest argument is a single inference, as per the Law of Detachment:

*If P, then Q.
*P.
*Therefore, Q.

The Law of the Syllogism uses Detachment to establish an ''intermediate'' conclusion between the original premise and the eventual conclusion. Thus:

*If P, then Q.
*If Q, then R.
*Therefore, if P, then R.
*P.
*Therefore, Q and R.

''Contraposition'' uses Detachment in reverse to show that a thing is ''not'' true:

*If P, then Q.
*Not Q.
*Therefore, not P.

All these proofs start with a proposition already verified or denied.

This is the classic structure of circular reasoning, that is an abuse of the Law of the Syllogism:

*If P, then Q.
*If Q, then R.
*If R, then P.
*P.
*Therefore, Q.
*Therefore, R.
*Therefore, P.

Each of these three conditional statements would be valid by itself. Together, they create a flawed argument, because P now depends on itself to be true. The line of reasoning ends where it began, and is thus a circle. The only difference between this and ''proof by assertion'' is that the latter attempts to use a single conditional statement--"if P, then P"--while circular reasoning uses at least two, and typically three or more, syllogisms.

Circular arguments can be very difficult to detect. Circular arguments found in the professional literature, or in [[propaganda]], typically use five or six (or more) syllogisms.

Every logical system ''must'' begin with a set of generally accepted assumptions called ''postulates'' or ''axioms'' (from the [[Greek]] '''αξιος''' or ''axios'' worthy or deserving). Similarly, any set of definitions must start with a set of fundamental terms that need no definition. An axiom is usually a fundamental property of nature upon which all agree. Persons attempting to show that something is a fundamental property of nature when it is not, or a value of that property that is contrary to fact, typically use circular reasoning to make such an attempt.
==Examples==
*Atheists use circular logic to "disprove" the existence of [[God]]. That is, they presuppose that God does not exist and then argue that all proofs for the existence of God must be flawed because He does not exist. Christians can use [[presuppositional apologetics]] to break the circle of the atheists' circular reasoning.
*[[Muslim]]s also use circular logic to defend the [[Qur'an]]. They argue that the Qur'an is true because it is the Word of [[Allah]], that it is the Word of Allah because it says so, and that we can rely on it because it is true. This is '''completely''' [[Special pleading |different]] from why the [[Bible]] is true.
*[[Evolutionist]]s will claim that a fossil is millions of years old because that is the date given by [[radiometric dating]]; then state that it is reliable because they "know" that the fossil is millions of years old due to the [[strata]] in which it was found; additionally because the radiometric dating methods agree with each other, and date correctly materials which were historically dated by humans.
*[[Mathematician]]s use circular reasoning to 'prove' that [[Pi]] is 3.14159..., rather than the Biblical (and correct) value of 3

== Reference ==

* [http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning Circular reasoning] by [[CreationWiki]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Circular reasoning