§ DEFINITION

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.


Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise."


Fallacy: Circular Reasoning
What's the difference between a valid deductive argument and a fallacy? In the case of the fallacy of circular reasoning, the difference is not be as obvious as you might expect. In the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. But that's also true for all valid deductions, where the conclusion (what you are trying to prove) is derived from the premises or assumptions. This difference is that, in circular reasoning, the conclusion is contained in a single premise or assumption, while in a deductive argument the conclusion is derived from both premises. Consider the following exchanges:

Deductive Reasoning (Valid)

Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world?
Sports Fan #2: Because it is the fastest and highest scoring form of football, and whatever is the fastest and highest scoring form of football must be the most exciting sport in the world.

Circular Reasoning (Fallacious)

Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world?
Sports Fan #2: Because it is.

In both examples, the conclusion has been assumed in the premises. But the first argument follows a valid pattern: If P (fastest and highest scoring), then Q (most exciting). Aussie Rules Football is P (fastest and highest scoring), therefore Aussie Rules Football is Q (most exciting). But in the second example, the one for circular reasoning, the conclusion has been assumed entirely (or almost entirely) in a single premise. As a result, the conclusion of a circular argument can be seen as just a restatement of its only premise. It's like saying, "A is B, therefore A is B."

Often, however, circular reasoning is more subtle than this: it depends on an assumption not stated but assumed. Consider the famous argument of the French philosopher, René Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." Descartes has begged the question here, because when he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he think?). Yet his fallacy continues to persuade people, over three hundred years later.

Yes, this does have something to do with 'ORGINS"!!

Well for some Darwinists it goes like this -

1. All life on earth seen today came about via the principles described in Darwinian evolutionism not by the Creationist description of Genesis 1 and Ex 20:8-11 where "IN SIX DAYS" God makes all of life on earth. Since evolution is true - then that's how we got here!

2. And of course We can know that evolutionism actually is true -- because we are here.




Or how about this one --

1. We know the age of this rock because of the index fossils that are found in this rock layer.

2. We know the age of this fossil because of the rock layer where it is found.


Or this one --

1. Survival of the fittest is a natural law predicting that the survivors do so because they are the fittest!

2. We can identify the fittest in any group because they are the ones that survive.


in Christ,

Bob

My head is spinning already.

It's true - 'survival of the fittest' does reduce to 'survival of the survivors'. That's why it's uncontroversial, though: as you say, the survivors are the ones who survive. And you can't breed if you don't survive.

On age of rocks, it's an over-simplification: there are three or four different forms of radioactive dating, plus the fossil record, plus information about strata... so it's 4 or 5 methods all giving similar ages for the same rocks, which is much less probable to be wrong than two.

Actually that is what makes it a tautaulogy and the funny thing about tautaulogies is that they convey no information.




You have over simplified the case on behalf of Darwinism. For example not long ago they found ancient fossils "in sand" and gave them ages based on other fossils also found "in sand" where they argue that in other parts of the world those fossils were found in a certain strata of rock.

So while there was no "dating the sand" and while there was no C14 going on for the fossils they were still 'coming up with dates' based on ONE idea alone -- index fossils.

in Christ,

Bob

I took a logic class at a local small university. I haven't thought too much about circular reasoning since then. I think I got an A in that class. That was some time ago; it was very interesting.

DB

All methods of radioactive dating start with the assumption that the rocks are over 100,000 years old. If the rocks are actually under 100,000 years old the dating methods would not be accurate. New rocks with known ages have been tested and given false dates.

The problem with rocks less than 100,000 years is the margin of error in radiometric dating. An example can be seen the case of Potassium-Argon where the half-life is at 1.5BILLION years and the margin of error is +- 250,000 years.

Testing a rock with a known age that is something less than the margin of error in the radiometric measurement used, is not good science.

in Christ,

Bob