Circular reasoning
Table of Content:
Circular reasoning
- Circular reasoning: The conclusion is assumed in the premises.
Explanation
Circular reasoning, also known as circular logic or circular argumentation, is a type of fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is also included in the premises, essentially restating the same idea in a different way without actually providing any new evidence or support.
In other words, it's a form of reasoning where the argument goes in a circle, using the conclusion to support itself, which doesn't offer any real justification for the claim being made.
Here's a simplified example:
Person A: "I'm right because I said so, and I wouldn't say it if I weren't right."
In this example, Person A is using circular reasoning. The conclusion ("I'm right") is restated in different words in the premises ("I said so" and "I wouldn't say it if I weren't right"). However, this argument doesn't provide any external evidence or logical reasoning to support the claim that Person A is right.
Circular reasoning might seem convincing on the surface, but it's ultimately flawed because it doesn't provide any meaningful support or evidence to back up the conclusion.
Overall, the circular reasoning fallacy is a type of faulty reasoning where the argument's conclusion is essentially used as one of the premises, creating a loop that doesn't actually establish the truth of the claim being made.