Also, a statement isn't false just because it uses circular reasoning. The reasoning is as good as the foundation it is built upon. My foundation is built on the solid Rock and so my reasoning is trustworthy.
51 comments
No, reasoning is the foundation for any (rational) belief system. If it is not, it just gets in the way of confirming your preconceptions, and you have no use for it. Which, of course, is exactly what's happening in your case.
True, something is not false because of circular reasoning, circular reasoning does not prove anything true or false. So if you are using circular reasoning you are basically making a non-proof of the proposition, so it is technically a "bare assertion" unless backed up by other evidence.
Then again, if you had other evidence you wouldn't have had to resort to circular reasoning, would you?
1. Circular reasoning is invalid
So if circular reasoning is valid then so is the above argument that proves it isn't.
"Also, a statement isn't false just because it uses circular reasoning."
Technically true. An invalid argument can still have a correct conclusion. However, if you want us to believe the conclusion you're going to have to come up with a better argument.
"The reasoning is as good as the foundation it is built upon. My foundation is built on the solid Rock and so my reasoning is trustworthy."
No and no. That your world view is built on a logical fallacy (a fairly simple one at that) really says something.
I'd give you a book to help you, but I think I know what you'd do with it....
image
a statement isn't false just because it uses circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning is basically a disguised "because I said so" argument. It may be true or false, but because it's logically invalid, it's useless in determining which.
It would have been nice to see the thread that spawned this monstrosity, the link doesn't work. I'm wondering if the solid Rock of his foundation is the Bible, in which case, his argument is built on multiple layers of bullshit.
@Murdin:
Circular reasoning image is brilliant. I want to thank whoever came up with that, because it's awesome. I never would have thought of that... *sob*
Anyway, while I agree that circular reasoning in and of itself does not make a statement false (no logical fallacy does), it does mean that you can't prove the statement's veracity using said reasoning. The same is true of any logical fallacy: No matter how right you are, you'll have to use sound reasoning to prove it.
Yes, a statement may not necessarily be false if it uses circular reasoning, but only if there is SOME OUTSIDE SOURCE OF EVIDENCE OR PROOF adding onto it or validating its claim.
However, if all it has is circular reasoning, believe you me that its chances of being right are really really slim.
So, you're right because you're not wrong, and because you're not wrong, you must be right.
The above statement offers no solid information. It is simply re-asserting a point with another assertion and concluding that this settles the matter. Now do you see why circular reasoning is fallacious?
"The reasoning is as good as the foundation it is built upon."
And if you're using circular reasoning, then you have NO foundation. You can't build a house upon itself.
Also, a statement isn't false just because it uses circular reasoning.
I'll agree to that, but circular reasoning can't make a statement true, either, so what's the point of using one?
The reasoning is as good as the foundation it is built upon.
Reasoning is as good as the logic behind it. That's the point .
My foundation is built on the solid Rock and so my reasoning is trustworthy.
Circular reasoning. See my first point, above.
I've never understood how someone could be THIS stupid. I recognized the problem with circular reasoning the first time I heard the "the bible is true because god wrote it, because it says in the bible that god wrote it" argument, and I was still in elementary school at the time. The problem with that argument is so bloody obvious...
Oh dear, a infinite & potentially recursive loop...(Strictly speaking, I could continue with a discussion of the potential differences in logical processing, between neural nets VS deterministic linear logic networks, but frankly, I can't be bothered...)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
