serious question for evolutionist, (page 21)

unstopableravens

bohm/mad i dont think either one is circular, maybe im wrong. is this statement circular? "bob is faithful to his wife because hes not a cheater. if that is than perhaphs my two statement are than.

J. Hofer

i think you're starting to see it, usr. that was a nice example of circular reasoning, in this case also called begging the question.

bohm

unstop:

Okay let me try to do this slowly

the universe is not creation because it was not created"
Why is the universe not created?
Because to be created means it is creation and that cant be the case because...
- the universe is not creation because it was not created"
- why is the universe not created?
- because to be created means it is creation and that cant be the case because...

You dont think thats inherently circular logic? if not, i suppose you accept the universe is not created?

jgnat

Bob is likely faithful to his wife because no-one has observed him cheating. - not circular

Bob is faithful to his wife because he says he is not a cheater. - circular

MadGiant

Try this site:

http://www.redwoods.edu/Instruct/JJohnston/English1B/reading/logic/fallaciesIV.html

and this one:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

unstopableravens

bohm: does the truthfulness of a statement change if its circular in your opinion

MadGiant

Of course the Bible is the word of God. It says so right in the Book of John.

The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says the Bible is the word of God. Hmmmm…..

So how are you going to get a person who makes this kind of claim to understand why youcan’t accept the argument? How are you going to expose its flaw? First, it’s essential that you make the arguer see that the “reason” he/she is offering in support of a claim isn’t really a reason it all. It’s either a restatement of the claim or an unproven assumption. If the reason is really just a restatement of the original claim, it will be helpful to reword the claim so that the language of the conclusion and reason is the same so it’s easier to see the circularity (like above with the abortion and Bible examples). It may also help to use an analogy (as long as it’s not a false analogy) to put different terms into the argument that will allow the speaker of the fallacy to see the underlying logic more easily:

Saying the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says the Bible is the word of God is a bit like saying the accused murderer is innocent because the accused murderer’s personal diary says he didn’t kill anyone.

If the reason is really just another unproven claim (as in the pig heart statements above), then it is essential that the arguer be made to see why the reason needs to first be proved if it is to serve as proof of another claim. In other words, for a reason to be a real reason it has to be true. In the pig heart examples, we could begin by showing how critical it is that opponents believe the reasons are true in order for them to believe the claim is true.

Usually, we fall into the trap of circular reasoning when we are arguing for somethingwe’ve believed for a very, very long time without ever examining why we believe it. It just “feels” true, so when pressed for a reason, we reword the conclusion and offer it as a reason. The challenge of addressing a circular argument is getting the arguer to examine the long-held assumption that functions in her mind as a reason for the conclusion. She’ll resist letting go of that, though, because doing so leaves her with nothing but a baseless claim, and she’ll have to reexamine the issue and essentially start over. No one really likes being told they don’t know what they’re talking about, and fewer still like having to acknowledge they don’t know what they’re talking about. But that’s essentially what’s exposed when one begs the question. When someone says to you “That’s just the way it is” or “It’s just common sense,” you can bet there is likely some circular thinking going on.

http://www.redwoods.edu/Instruct/JJohnston/English1B/reading/logic/fallaciesIV.html

serious question for evolutionist,

Share this