Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In statistics, hypotheses suggested by a given dataset, when tested with the same dataset that suggested them, are likely to be accepted even when they are not true.This is because circular reasoning (double dipping) would be involved: something seems true in the limited data set; therefore we hypothesize that it is true in general; therefore we wrongly test it on the same, limited data set ...
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 ...
A logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise, making the argument circular. Bew See provability predicate. BHK-interpretation The Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov interpretation, a constructivist interpretation of intuitionistic logic, where the truth of a statement is equated with the existence of a proof for it. bias
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.
Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying "If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?"). [72] In jury trial, it is known as a Chewbacca defense.
For valid arguments, it is not important whether the premises are actually true but only that, if they were true, the conclusion could not be false. Valid arguments follow a rule of inference, such as modus ponens or modus tollens. Deductive reasoning plays a central role in formal logic and mathematics.
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.