Understanding Circular Reasoning: A Barrier to Sound Logical Reasoning
Circular reasoning, also known as begging the question, is a type of logical fallacy where an argument's premise is assumed to be true without sufficient justification. This essay will explore the definition of circular reasoning and its significant impact on logical reasoning. We will also discuss how geologists and paleontologists use well-established methodologies to avoid circularity in their work.
What is Circular Reasoning?
Circular reasoning occurs when one argument depends on the very claim it is supposed to prove. A classic example of this is asserting that the content of a religious text is true because the text itself claims so. This creates a 'circle' in the argument, where the evidence and the conclusion are essentially the same, resulting in a logically unsound argument.
The Impact on Logical Reasoning
Sounding logical arguments are crucial in various fields, from philosophy and science to everyday life. Circular reasoning undermines the integrity of an argument, making it impossible to derive genuinely novel insights or conclusions. It is doubly ineffective because it fails to convince those who are skeptical and can easily become a crutch for those who are not well-versed in logical reasoning.
Examples in Everyday Life
A common manifestation of circular reasoning is when someone assumes something is true based on an unfounded belief. For instance, saying 'I know my religion’s holy text is true because it says so right there in the holy text' is a perfect example of circular reasoning.
Geological and Paleontological Methods: Stepping Stones of Factual Evidence
Geologists and paleontologists, experts in understanding Earth's history through the study of rocks and fossils, provide us with an excellent example of how to avoid circular reasoning. Geologists, for example, use well-documented methods to date rocks by analyzing the layers of sedimentary rock. They can accurately determine the age of a rock by the fossil evidence it contains. Similarly, paleontologists date fossils based on the layers of rock in which they are found, ensuring that their argument is based on empirical evidence rather than a circular presupposition.
Parables and Analogies
Parables like 'Haunted Home' illustrate how flawed reasoning can lead to negative outcomes, such as despair and hate. When making an assertion that requires the assertion itself as evidence, it creates a circular reasoning loop that cannot be broken and instead may result in logical fallacies and misinterpretations.
Re-defining Assumption and Presumption
My books re-define presumption and assumption to enhance logical reasoning. An assumption is a belief taken for granted without evidence, while presumption is the act of putting faith in a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
Presumption, when well-founded, can be a valuable tool in making decisions and reasoning. However, if a presumption is too vague to be actionable, it risks becoming circular reasoning. A vast presumption is too broad to be credible, whereas a mild presumption is more manageable and can be considered in developing logical arguments.
Conclusion
Understanding and avoiding circular reasoning is crucial for practicing sound logical reasoning. By integrating well-established methodologies in fields like geology and paleontology, we can ensure that our arguments are based on empirical evidence rather than circular presuppositions. Recognizing the traps of circular reasoning prevents us from falling into logical fallacies and helps us make more informed decisions.
In summary, recognizing and avoiding circular reasoning enhances the quality of our arguments and decisions, making us better critical thinkers and logical reasoners.