Argument
Circular reasoning
Overview
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, lit. 'circle in proving'; also known as circular logic) is a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion. As a consequence, the argument becomes a matter of faith and fails to persuade those who do not already accept it. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
An example of circular reasoning is: “This statement is correct because it says it is correct.”
Overview adapted from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0; see the article history for authors).
Possible passages
Found by search and not yet checked by a person; they may only mention the idea in passing.
There are many ways of refuting this opinion; one of the easiest is derived from the consideration of what are called "asymmetrical" relations. In order to explain this, I will first explain two independent ways of classifying relations.
Bertrand Russell, Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy
States what Circular reasoning is; the author is tied to Circular reasoning in the knowledge graph.
The predicate of the conclusion is called the major term of the syllogism; the subject of the conclusion is called the minor term. As there can be but three terms, the major and minor terms must each be found in one, and only one, of the premises, together with the middle term which is in them both.
John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive
States what Circular reasoning is.
XIV. This kind of disputing is very closely connected with the mode of discussion adopted by you lawyers in reply, and still more closely with that adopted by philosophers, as they share with the orators in the employment of that general conclusion which is drawn from inconsistent sentences, which is called by dialecticians the third mood, and by rhetoricians an enthymeme. There are many other moods used by the…
Marcus Tullius Cicero, The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 4
States what Circular reasoning is.
Philosophers who discussed Circular reasoning
Related ideas
- Faith
- Pyrrhonism
- Western philosophy
- Problem of induction
- Sextus Empiricus
- Epoché
- Uniformitarianism
- Formal fallacy
- Inductive reasoning
- Bertrand Russell
- Begging the question
- Fallacy
- Cambridge University Press
- David Hume
- Trope (philosophy)
- Agrippa the Skeptic
- Joel Feinberg
- Russ Shafer-Landau
Place in the tradition
Part of Foundationalism.