Circular reasoning

Definition

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.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Circular reasoning often manifests in debates where a claim is restated rather than supported with new evidence, making it unconvincing.
2. This fallacy can be hard to identify because it may appear persuasive at first glance, particularly if the language used is emotionally charged.
3. Common examples include statements like 'I believe that ghosts exist because I have seen them,' where seeing ghosts is treated as evidence while assuming their existence.
4. To avoid circular reasoning, it's crucial to present clear evidence or logical connections that do not rely on the claim being true.
5. Recognizing circular reasoning helps in improving critical thinking skills, as it allows individuals to assess arguments more effectively and discern valid reasoning.

Review Questions

• How does circular reasoning differ from a well-structured argument, and why is this distinction important?
  • Circular reasoning differs from a well-structured argument in that it fails to provide independent support for its conclusion. In a sound argument, the premises offer distinct evidence that logically leads to the conclusion. Understanding this distinction is important because recognizing circular reasoning can help individuals evaluate arguments more critically and avoid being misled by flawed reasoning.
• Discuss how circular reasoning can impact discussions or debates and provide an example.
  • Circular reasoning can derail discussions or debates by preventing genuine dialogue and critical engagement with the subject matter. For example, if someone argues 'We shouldn't trust politicians because they are untrustworthy,' they are using circular reasoning by not providing any concrete examples or evidence of untrustworthiness. This kind of reasoning halts progress in a debate since it doesn't foster a deeper understanding of the topic.
• Evaluate the implications of recognizing circular reasoning in public discourse and its potential effects on societal beliefs.
  • Recognizing circular reasoning in public discourse has significant implications for how society forms beliefs and makes decisions. When individuals can identify flawed reasoning patterns, they become more discerning consumers of information, which can lead to healthier debate environments and informed citizenry. Over time, this critical awareness may challenge entrenched beliefs based on faulty logic, fostering a culture that values sound reasoning and empirical evidence over persuasive but unfounded assertions.

Related terms

Begging the Question: A type of circular reasoning where an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it, leading to a lack of actual evidence.

Logical Fallacy: An error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid, which can undermine the argument's overall effectiveness.

Assumption: A statement or belief that is taken for granted without proof, often forming the basis of circular reasoning.