Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; [1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. [2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or ...
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion. [26] The individual components of a circular argument can be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does not lack relevance. However ...
The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition; The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum; The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended
Most valid arguments are not yet known to be valid. To determine validity in non-obvious cases deductive reasoning is required. There is no deductive reasoning in an argument per se; such must come from the outside. Every argument's conclusion is a premise of other arguments. The word constituent may be used for either a premise or conclusion.
An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid". An example of a valid (and sound) argument is given by the following well-known syllogism: All men are mortal. (True) Socrates is a man. (True) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (True) What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion.
Being a valid argument does not necessarily mean the conclusion will be true. It is valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. This can be proven for any valid argument form using a truth table which shows that there is no situation in which there are all true premises and a false conclusion. [2]
Each one has a name (for example, argument from effect to cause) and presents a type of connection between premises and a conclusion in an argument, and this connection is expressed as a rule of inference. Argumentation schemes can include inferences based on different types of reasoning—deductive, inductive, abductive, probabilistic, etc.
A circular reference is not to be confused with the logical fallacy of a circular argument.Although a circular reference will often be unhelpful and reveal no information, such as two entries in a book index referring to each other, it is not necessarily so that a circular reference is of no use.