Definition
Circular Reasoning is a logical fallacy where the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, but the argument as a whole fails to prove anything because it takes its conclusion for granted.
Why It Matters
It exposes arguments that prove nothing because they take their conclusions for granted, serving as a critical tool for identifying logic that lacks connection to external reality.
Core Concepts
- Tautology: A specific form of circular reasoning where the conclusion is just a restatement of the premise in different words (e.g., “A = B, therefore A = B”).
- Begging the Question: Often used interchangeably with circular reasoning, this involves assuming the truth of a conclusion in the premises of an argument.
- Crippled Epistemology: In conspiracy thinking, circular reasoning is used as a filter to confirm existing beliefs rather than evaluate new information.
- No True Scotsman: A special case where a definition is arbitrarily altered to make an argument true by definition, effectively making it circular.