Circular reasoning, also known as a circular argument, is a logical fallacy that occurs when the premises of an argument rely on or presuppose the truth of the conclusion, and the conclusion, in turn, depends on the truth of the premises. In essence, it involves using the conclusion to support itself, resulting in a circular and uninformative argument.
Aspect | Description |
---|---|
Key Elements | 1. Repeating the Conclusion: Circular reasoning involves restating the conclusion or a very similar statement as one of the premises. 2. Lack of Independent Support: It fails to provide independent evidence or reasons to establish the truth of the conclusion. 3. Circular Chain: The argument creates a loop where the conclusion supports the premises, and the premises support the conclusion. 4. Tautological: It often appears tautological or vacuous because it doesn’t contribute any new information or understanding. |
Common Application | Circular reasoning can be found in various contexts, including debates, philosophical arguments, religious discussions, and everyday conversations when individuals inadvertently or deliberately engage in circular logic. |
Example | “The Bible is the word of God because God wrote it, and we know this because it’s written in the Bible.” |
Importance | Recognizing circular reasoning is crucial for critical thinking and argument evaluation because it identifies arguments that fail to provide meaningful support or justification for their conclusions. |
Key Characteristics of Circular Reasoning
Self-Supporting
Circular reasoning involves a self-supporting argument structure, where the conclusion is essentially restated or assumed in one of the premises. The argument fails to provide any external evidence or justification for the conclusion beyond itself.
Circularity
Circular reasoning exhibits circularity in its reasoning process, as the conclusion relies on premises that are themselves dependent on the conclusion. This circularity renders the argument logically invalid, as it does not offer any genuine support or evidence for the conclusion.
Tautology
Circular reasoning often results in a tautological statement, where the conclusion is synonymous with the premise or simply restates the same idea in different words. The argument becomes vacuous, offering no substantive insight or logical progression.
Lack of Evidence
Circular reasoning lacks substantive evidence or reasoning to support the conclusion independently of the premises. It relies solely on the assumption or assertion of the conclusion within the argument itself, failing to establish a valid logical connection.
Examples of Circular Reasoning
Example 1:
“The Bible is the word of God because God inspired it, and we know that God exists because the Bible says so.”
In this example, the conclusion (“The Bible is the word of God”) is presupposed in the premise (“God inspired it”), creating a circular argument that relies on the Bible to prove the existence of God, and then uses the existence of God to validate the authority of the Bible.
Example 2:
“I am always right because my opinions are never wrong.”
This statement is circular because it assumes the conclusion (“I am always right”) in the premise (“my opinions are never wrong”). It offers no external evidence or reasoning to support the claim of always being right, relying solely on the assertion within the argument itself.
Strategies for Identifying Circular Reasoning
Examine Premises
Examine the premises of an argument to identify any instances where the conclusion is assumed or presupposed. Look for statements that essentially restate the conclusion or rely on circular reasoning to support their validity.
Trace Logical Structure
Trace the logical structure of the argument to identify any circular or tautological patterns. Pay attention to the flow of reasoning and whether the conclusion is dependent on premises that themselves rely on the conclusion.
Question Assumptions
Question the assumptions underlying the argument to determine whether they are justified independently of the conclusion. Challenge circular reasoning by seeking evidence or reasoning that supports the conclusion without relying on circularity.
Test for Validity
Test the validity of the argument by evaluating whether it provides meaningful evidence or justification for the conclusion. Determine whether the argument establishes a logical connection between premises and conclusion or merely restates the same assertion.
Implications of Circular Reasoning
Logical Invalidity
Circular reasoning renders arguments logically invalid, as they fail to establish a valid logical connection between premises and conclusion. Arguments based on circular reasoning lack soundness and credibility, as they rely on circularity rather than evidence or reasoning.
Intellectual Dishonesty
Circular reasoning may reflect intellectual dishonesty or a lack of critical thinking skills, as it attempts to disguise unsupported assertions as logical arguments. It undermines the integrity of discourse and debate by substituting genuine reasoning with circularity.
Closed-mindedness
Circular reasoning promotes closed-mindedness by perpetuating self-reinforcing beliefs or ideologies. It inhibits intellectual curiosity, skepticism, and openness to alternative viewpoints by reinforcing existing convictions without subjecting them to scrutiny or challenge.
Barriers to Progress
Circular reasoning creates barriers to progress and innovation by stifling inquiry and debate. It hinders the exploration of new ideas, perspectives, and solutions by privileging entrenched beliefs or dogmas over evidence-based reasoning and critical inquiry.
Conclusion
- Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed or presupposed in one of the premises.
- Key characteristics of circular reasoning include self-supporting arguments, circularity, tautology, and lack of evidence.
- Strategies for identifying circular reasoning include examining premises, tracing logical structure, questioning assumptions, and testing for validity.
- Circular reasoning has implications for logical invalidity, intellectual dishonesty, closed-mindedness, and barriers to progress in discourse and decision-making.
- Recognizing and avoiding circular reasoning is essential for constructing sound arguments, promoting rational discourse, and arriving at valid conclusions based on evidence and logic.
Case Study | Implication | Analysis | Example |
---|---|---|---|
Religious Doctrine | Circular support for religious beliefs. | Arguing that a religious text is divinely inspired because it claims to be the word of a deity, and we believe in the text’s divine inspiration because the text says so. This creates a circular chain of reasoning without external evidence. | Claiming that a religious scripture is the word of God because the scripture itself asserts its divine origin, and believing in its divine origin because it is the word of God. |
Begging the Question (Circular Fallacy) | Circular justification of a claim. | Using the claim itself as evidence to support the same claim, effectively begging the question. For example, asserting that a conspiracy theory is true because the conspirators are experts in concealing the truth, and we know they are experts because they’ve concealed the truth so effectively. | Claiming that a conspiracy theory is accurate because the people involved are skilled at hiding the evidence, and we conclude their expertise in hiding evidence because the theory claims they are experts. |
Philosophical Circularity | Circular reasoning in philosophical arguments. | In philosophical discussions, presenting a premise that is equivalent to the conclusion without offering additional reasoning or evidence. For example, arguing that “I exist because I think, and I think because I exist.” This fails to provide a substantive argument for existence. | Asserting one’s existence by stating, “I think, therefore I am,” without further justification, essentially restating the conclusion in the premise. |
Political Ideology | Circular support for political beliefs. | Advocating for a political ideology by asserting that it is the right choice because it aligns with one’s personal values, and those values are correct because they are consistent with the chosen political ideology. This creates a circular justification for beliefs. | Arguing that a specific political ideology is the best choice because it reflects your values, and your values are correct because they align with that ideology. |
Pseudoscientific Claims | Circular validation of pseudoscientific beliefs. | Using a pseudoscientific claim to support itself, such as asserting that crystals have healing powers because people believe in their healing properties, and people believe in their healing properties because they have healing powers. This argument lacks empirical evidence. | Claiming that crystals possess healing powers because people believe in their healing properties, and people believe in their healing properties because crystals possess healing powers. |
Connected Thinking Frameworks
Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking
Law of Unintended Consequences
Read Next: Biases, Bounded Rationality, Mandela Effect, Dunning-Kruger Effect, Lindy Effect, Crowding Out Effect, Bandwagon Effect.
Main Guides: