Post by The Admin on Jun 2, 2004 17:13:37 GMT -6
Circluar reasoning: When one's premise is based upon one's conclusion.
For example, one might state that "Revolutions only occur when people are sufficiently upset and therefore take up arms" When asked the definiton of "sufficently upset" the logician might respond "ready to take up arms." Inserting this into the original statement, however, yields the following logical conjecture: "Revolutions occur when people are ready to take up arms and therefore take up arms." The Conclusion, people taking up arms, is therefore defined as occuring when the premise is fufilled, that it when people are ready to take up arms.
Alternative to circular reasoning is sequential reasoning, where one starts with a beginning postulate and arrives at a conclusion based upon the truth of the original postulate. For Example, let our given be that G-d Exists and our system of logical deduction be that if something is so, then it is so. From this one may construct the logical statement "Given that G-d exists, G-d exists." At first this statement appears to be circular insomuch that the conclusion is the same as the premise. The definition of circular reasoning, however, is when one's premise is based upon one's conclusion. If we look at the first part of the statement, however, "Given that G-d exists..." we can see that it is based not upon our conclusion, but rather upon the fact that it is our given. If we had instead declared "G-d exists because G-d exists" we would be guilty of circular reasoning.
We must also take note to distinguish circular reasoning from linear resoning wherein the conclusion supports the premise and the premise supports the conclusion but neither is dependent wholy on the other. For example, let our given be that Statement A is probably true. Let our system of logical conjecture be that if Statement A is probably true then Statement B is certainly true and that if Statement B is probably true then Statement A is certainly true. We may now construct the following set of logical deductions: "Given Statement A is probably true, Statement B is certainly true. Given Statement B is certainly true, Statement A is certainly true. Therefore given Statement A is probably true, Statments A and B are certainly true." This reasoning again appears circular as we seem to support A using B and B using A. It is in fact not so, however, as our premise, that Statement A is probably true, is given and not at all based on either Statement A or Statement B.
For example, one might state that "Revolutions only occur when people are sufficiently upset and therefore take up arms" When asked the definiton of "sufficently upset" the logician might respond "ready to take up arms." Inserting this into the original statement, however, yields the following logical conjecture: "Revolutions occur when people are ready to take up arms and therefore take up arms." The Conclusion, people taking up arms, is therefore defined as occuring when the premise is fufilled, that it when people are ready to take up arms.
Alternative to circular reasoning is sequential reasoning, where one starts with a beginning postulate and arrives at a conclusion based upon the truth of the original postulate. For Example, let our given be that G-d Exists and our system of logical deduction be that if something is so, then it is so. From this one may construct the logical statement "Given that G-d exists, G-d exists." At first this statement appears to be circular insomuch that the conclusion is the same as the premise. The definition of circular reasoning, however, is when one's premise is based upon one's conclusion. If we look at the first part of the statement, however, "Given that G-d exists..." we can see that it is based not upon our conclusion, but rather upon the fact that it is our given. If we had instead declared "G-d exists because G-d exists" we would be guilty of circular reasoning.
We must also take note to distinguish circular reasoning from linear resoning wherein the conclusion supports the premise and the premise supports the conclusion but neither is dependent wholy on the other. For example, let our given be that Statement A is probably true. Let our system of logical conjecture be that if Statement A is probably true then Statement B is certainly true and that if Statement B is probably true then Statement A is certainly true. We may now construct the following set of logical deductions: "Given Statement A is probably true, Statement B is certainly true. Given Statement B is certainly true, Statement A is certainly true. Therefore given Statement A is probably true, Statments A and B are certainly true." This reasoning again appears circular as we seem to support A using B and B using A. It is in fact not so, however, as our premise, that Statement A is probably true, is given and not at all based on either Statement A or Statement B.