7.1 Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning
2 min read•august 9, 2024
Fallacies of presumption can trip up even the smartest thinkers. and are sneaky ways arguments can go wrong. They assume what they're trying to prove, leaving you running in circles.
These fallacies pop up everywhere, from casual chats to political debates. Spotting them helps you think more clearly and argue more effectively. Let's break down how they work and why they're so tricky to catch.
Definition and Terminology
Understanding Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning
Top images from around the web for Understanding Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Critical Thinking Skills | College Success View original
Is this image relevant?
Logical Fallacies - Sensemaking Resources, Education, and Community View original
Is this image relevant?
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Critical Thinking Skills | College Success View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Understanding Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Critical Thinking Skills | College Success View original
Is this image relevant?
Logical Fallacies - Sensemaking Resources, Education, and Community View original
Is this image relevant?
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Critical Thinking Skills | College Success View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Begging the question refers to an argument where the assumes the truth of the without providing independent evidence
- Circular reasoning involves an argument that uses its own conclusion as one of its premises
- serves as the Latin term for begging the question, translating to "assuming the initial point"
- encompasses flawed reasoning patterns that render arguments invalid or unsound
- Begging the question falls under the category of informal logical fallacies
- Informal fallacies relate to the content of the argument rather than its structure
Distinguishing Characteristics and Examples
- Begging the question often appears convincing at first glance but lacks substantive support
- "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible"
- Circular reasoning creates a closed loop of logic that fails to provide new information
- "Smoking is bad for you because it's unhealthy"
- Tautologies involve statements that are true by definition but offer no meaningful insight
- "All bachelors are unmarried men"
- Identifying these fallacies requires careful analysis of the argument's structure and premises
Structure of the Fallacy
Components of Circular Arguments
- Premise functions as the starting point or in an argument
- In circular reasoning, the premise often restates the conclusion in different words
- Conclusion represents the claim being argued for or the point being proven
- Circular arguments fail to provide independent support for the conclusion
- occurs when a statement is true by virtue of its logical form
- "Either it will rain tomorrow or it won't rain tomorrow"
- Tautologies differ from circular reasoning as they are always true, while circular arguments can be false
Analyzing Circular Reasoning Patterns
- Circular arguments often follow a structure where A implies B, and B implies A
- "The President is trustworthy because the White House says so, and the White House is reliable because the President appointed them"
- Identifying hidden assumptions helps reveal the circular nature of an argument
- "Free will exists because we make choices, and we make choices because we have free will"
- Breaking down complex arguments into simpler components can expose circular logic
- Examine each premise and conclusion separately to determine if they rely on each other
Key Terms to Review (17)
Argument Mapping: Argument mapping is a visual technique that helps to outline and clarify the structure of arguments by illustrating the relationships between premises and conclusions. This method enables individuals to evaluate the strength and cogency of arguments more effectively, making it easier to identify logical connections and fallacies.
Assumption: An assumption is an underlying belief or statement taken for granted without proof, often serving as the basis for reasoning or argumentation. Assumptions are crucial in debates and discussions as they can influence conclusions drawn and dictate the direction of an argument. Recognizing and questioning assumptions can lead to stronger, more sound reasoning.
Begging the Question: Begging the question is a logical fallacy where an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it, creating a circular reasoning effect. This means that the argument doesn't provide valid evidence or reasoning, as it merely restates the conclusion in a different form. It’s important to recognize this fallacy in reasoning and argumentation as it undermines the credibility of the claim being made.
Circular reasoning: Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premises, creating a loop that fails to provide independent support for the argument. This type of reasoning often leads to invalid conclusions because it doesn't introduce any new information or evidence to support its claims. Essentially, the argument goes in circles without establishing a sound basis for belief or understanding.
Cognitive Bias: Cognitive bias refers to systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, leading individuals to make illogical decisions based on their subjective perspectives. These biases affect how we interpret information and influence the conclusions we draw, often causing flawed reasoning and decision-making processes. Understanding cognitive biases is crucial as they can distort our perceptions and lead to poor analogical reasoning, generalized assumptions, and circular logic.
Conclusion: A conclusion is the statement that follows logically from the premises of an argument, representing the claim that the argument is trying to establish or prove. Understanding conclusions is crucial as they serve as the focal point of arguments, allowing one to assess the strength, validity, and soundness of reasoning presented within various contexts.
Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is drawn from a set of premises that are generally assumed to be true. It involves starting with general statements or hypotheses and applying them to specific cases, leading to conclusions that are logically certain if the premises are accurate.
Fallacy Identification: Fallacy identification refers to the process of recognizing errors in reasoning or flawed arguments within a given discourse. It plays a crucial role in critical thinking, as understanding these fallacies helps individuals analyze and evaluate arguments more effectively. This process is essential for fostering logical reasoning and promoting clearer communication, particularly in debates and discussions where strong, valid arguments are necessary.
Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. This type of reasoning allows for the formation of generalized conclusions based on specific instances or observations, making it crucial for identifying patterns and inferring probabilities within arguments.
Logical Fallacy: A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that undermines the logical validity of an argument. These fallacies can be found in various forms, such as misleading conclusions, irrelevant evidence, or unclear premises, which make arguments unconvincing or deceptive. Understanding logical fallacies is crucial for evaluating arguments effectively and fostering critical thinking skills.
Logical Inconsistency: A logical inconsistency occurs when a set of statements or propositions cannot all be true at the same time due to conflicting or contradictory information. This concept is crucial in evaluating arguments and reasoning, as identifying inconsistencies helps reveal flaws in logic, particularly in cases of begging the question and circular reasoning where conclusions are drawn from premises that essentially restate the conclusion itself.
Petitio principii: Petitio principii, also known as begging the question, is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of the premises. This circular reasoning fails to provide any actual evidence or justification for the conclusion, as it essentially restates the claim rather than proving it. The reliance on the conclusion within the premise creates a flawed argumentative structure that hinders meaningful discussion or persuasion.
Premise: A premise is a statement or proposition that provides support or reason for a conclusion within an argument. Premises form the foundation of reasoning, allowing one to draw inferences and make logical connections that lead to valid conclusions.
Soundness: Soundness refers to the quality of an argument where it is both valid and has true premises. This means that if an argument is sound, the conclusion must also be true because the logical structure is correct and the supporting statements are accurate. Understanding soundness helps in evaluating arguments effectively, distinguishing between different types of reasoning, and recognizing when conclusions can be reliably drawn from premises.
Supporting evidence: Supporting evidence refers to the facts, data, examples, or reasoning that bolster an argument or claim, enhancing its credibility and persuasiveness. It plays a crucial role in constructing valid arguments and is essential for developing clear thesis statements and effectively organizing ideas. By providing solid backing for assertions, supporting evidence helps avoid logical fallacies like begging the question or circular reasoning.
Tautology: A tautology is a statement that is always true, regardless of the truth values of its components. This logical certainty plays a significant role in evaluating arguments and understanding logical connectives, as it helps in distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones. Tautologies are often used in truth tables to demonstrate the consistency of logical expressions and can also illustrate flaws in reasoning, such as in cases of circular reasoning or begging the question.
Validity: Validity refers to the quality of an argument where if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. It's essential for evaluating the logical structure of arguments and determining whether they convincingly support their conclusions.