Circular reasoning

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (typo)
m (Presuppositional Apologist Argument)
(11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
A type of logical fallacy in which the proof of a statement is based on the statement itself. For example:
+
'''Circular reasoning''' is a type of [[logical fallacy]] in which the "proof" of a statement ultimately depends on assuming the truth of the statement itself.
  
"We know that [[God]] exists because the [[Bible]] says so. And we know that Bible must be right because it is the inspired word of God."
+
A very common example in the area of [[religion]] is the following [[argument from scripture]]:
 +
# We know that [[God]] exists because the [[Bible]] says so.
 +
# We know that Bible is correct because it is the inspired word of God.
  
In this argument, neither "we know that God exists" nor "we know the Bible must be right" have been independently proved without relying on the assumption of the other.
+
In other words:
 +
: Bible [[implies]] God implies Bible
  
[[Category: Logical fallacies]]
+
Neither the assertion that "God exists" nor that "the Bible is correct" have been independently proved without relying on the assumption of the other.
 +
 
 +
==Presuppositional Apologist Argument==
 +
Presuppositional apologists (primarily from the reformed school of theology) argue that circular reasoning is acceptable and necessary within a world-view and that circular reasoning is only un-acceptable when it presents a self-contradiction. <br />
 +
This is demonstrated by showing that the scientific worldview has certain assumptions about the universe and that those assumptions are based on observation but then observation is explained in terms of laws, which are themselves assumptions about the universe.  This is, of course, acceptable because it is consistent in and of itself and because the scientist does not claim that the conclusion validates the assumption, only that it is consistent with it.
 +
 
 +
However, for this argument to be valid, the observer must consider the assumptions inviolable. A basic tenet of science is that NO assumption can be considered inviolable, including the scientific method itself. Thousands of years ago, scientists assumed the sky, sun, stars, and moon all revolved around the earth, and developed "laws" (more properly called "theories") to explain this. Utilizing a circular thought process, scientists would be forced to incorporate their ideas within these geocentric theories. Utilizing a traditional scientific process, the scientist is permitted to completely reject these assumptions, and develop and test new hypotheses to explain the observations.
 +
 
 +
==See also==
 +
* [[Begging the question]]
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Revision as of 08:54, 19 September 2008

Circular reasoning is a type of logical fallacy in which the "proof" of a statement ultimately depends on assuming the truth of the statement itself.

A very common example in the area of religion is the following argument from scripture:

  1. We know that God exists because the Bible says so.
  2. We know that Bible is correct because it is the inspired word of God.

In other words:

Bible implies God implies Bible

Neither the assertion that "God exists" nor that "the Bible is correct" have been independently proved without relying on the assumption of the other.

Presuppositional Apologist Argument

Presuppositional apologists (primarily from the reformed school of theology) argue that circular reasoning is acceptable and necessary within a world-view and that circular reasoning is only un-acceptable when it presents a self-contradiction.
This is demonstrated by showing that the scientific worldview has certain assumptions about the universe and that those assumptions are based on observation but then observation is explained in terms of laws, which are themselves assumptions about the universe. This is, of course, acceptable because it is consistent in and of itself and because the scientist does not claim that the conclusion validates the assumption, only that it is consistent with it.

However, for this argument to be valid, the observer must consider the assumptions inviolable. A basic tenet of science is that NO assumption can be considered inviolable, including the scientific method itself. Thousands of years ago, scientists assumed the sky, sun, stars, and moon all revolved around the earth, and developed "laws" (more properly called "theories") to explain this. Utilizing a circular thought process, scientists would be forced to incorporate their ideas within these geocentric theories. Utilizing a traditional scientific process, the scientist is permitted to completely reject these assumptions, and develop and test new hypotheses to explain the observations.

See also

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox