Avoiding Logical Fallacies

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Making assumptions is not the basis of “circular” in logic. Circular logic is problematic because it is a restatement. Whether a premise is or is not defended is irrelevant to the arguments circularity.

This is your clue that you misunderstand – the qualifier for circularity is not what you suggest.

That is not the least bit circular as an argument. 3) is not a restatement of 1) (or 2).

This is indeed circular, but not because people would not accept 1) (circularity does not obtain from soundness or unsoundness of a premise!). It is circular because it is a restatement, and “goes both directions”.

What you have missed for circularity is the role the the conclusion in supporting the premise. Here, 2), your conclusion, is used to support 1) the premise. That’s the error; logically, we want to go from premise to conclusion, and the syllogism should stand on its own unidirectionally. In your “red ball” example, your conclusion 3) is not the guarantor of premise 1). There is not “reverse argumentation” that is the essence of circularity in reasoning.

A simple rule that can help test this principle is just to look and see if anything is added by the conclusion – is any putative new knowledge presented? In the red ball argument, there is new knowledge to be gained (assuming the soundness of the premises). We can now believe you are holding a red ball (we went from “seeing” to “believing”).

In the Bible example, your conclusion adds nothing over the premise, and as such is not an argument at all.

If I say:

1. Paul’s words are true because they are in the Bible
2. Paul’s words are in the Bible because they are in the Bible.

On their own, neither 1) or 2) on their own is a problem in formal terms. It’s only when 1) is offered to support 2) which is in turn used to support 1) which then is used to support 2)… that the problem obtains (note the “because” used in both). It’s problematic precisely because it is NOT susceptible to challenge, but is trivially true.

I note that tautologies and other circular forms are incredibly useful. They are trivial truths, though, just definitions. When offered in the context of arguments about the state of the real world, it’s an error, as the real world doesn’t enter into the equation, and no liability to challenge exists at all.

The Red Ball argument begins with a metaphysical claim as the premise, and then goes onto apply a concrete conclusion based on the physical particulars in 2). 3) doesn’t argue back to 1), chasing its tail as does the Bible argument. The Red Ball argument invites testing and challenge, which is what fundamentally separates it from the Bible argument, which admits of neither.

-TS

Touchstone—

“Making assumptions is not the basis of “circular” in logic. Circular logic is problematic because it is a restatement. Whether a premise is or is not defended is irrelevant to the arguments circularity.”

Interesting, Touchstone…

How about the statement “The Iraq War was wrong because George W. Bush lied to the American People about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saddam Hussein’s role in 9/11.”
Some would say that statement can be “defended” and some cannot.
Is that a circular argument??? Since the “defense” angle is “irrelevant.” does that make it a circular argument?

Actually, I would say no. Because to ME it is a matter of opinion that can be neither disproven or disproven. (Although some would disagree with me, of course.)

Not having to do with Logic.

BTW—

(One reason I asked this was NOT to start a political argument or rehash some old complaints of good folks on either side of the political spectrum. I don’t want the thread derailed. Please. Nor is it intended as a barometer of people’s feelings towards Dubya
—I personally voted for him in the 2004 election. And I was basically for the Iraq War-although I feel there were some major missteps that were made and bungling errors and stupidity on ALL sides.)

THE reason I asked was because I actually heard someone about a year ago reply to the above statement with the words “That is a circular piece of logic.”
It was a conversation at a party and I didn’t press it—but I remembered it when I read your statement and post, Touchstone.

So, what do YOU think??? Can it be said to be “circular logic?”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

The Vienna School of Positivism; or Positivism at all leave a bad taste in my brain…

I would respond; their claim can neither be confirmed nor falsified; nor can their statements be regarded as anything beyond a statement of definition; ie; ergo; they are self refuting.

It’s not inconveniencing at all.

Stating “There is no God” is an absurd claim; for it to constitute a formal fallacy however; some premises would have to be offered. An argument cannot be fallacious unless there is an argument; and an assertation alone (ie; “There is no God”) is not an argument; but a statement.

Excellent. Thank you.

The Vienna School is not conducive to my “taste,” either…

 

[JohnDamian]

Making assumptions is not the basis of “circular” in logic. Circular logic is problematic because it is a restatement. Whether a premise is or is not defended is irrelevant to the arguments circularity.

Perhaps we are using different terminology. Circular logic repeats itself; insofar as the conclusion adds nothing. All logic must be circular; as the premises must lead to the conclusion; and the conclusion assume the premises; or the synthesis thereof.

That is not the least bit circular as an argument. 3) is not a restatement of 1) (or 2).

1. is a synthesis of 1) and 2). 3) is a consequence of 1) and 2); just as it should be; but it is circular in regards to it beign a closed system with the repetition of the synthesis of premises leading to a composite conclusion; Logic is not an open system; ie; ergo it is cyclic; and adds no new knowlege.

1. (circularity does not obtain from soundness or unsoundness of a premise!)

Admittedly I was ambiguous; Circularity is accidental; but in the predication of Circularity with fallacy rests in soundness.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone—

“Making assumptions is not the basis of “circular” in logic. Circular logic is problematic because it is a restatement. Whether a premise is or is not defended is irrelevant to the arguments circularity.”

Interesting, Touchstone…

How about the statement “The Iraq War was wrong because George W. Bush lied to the American People about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saddam Hussein’s role in 9/11.”
Some would say that statement can be “defended” and some cannot.
Is that a circular argument???

Not circular. Not a restatement. We are going from something to something else:

1. Lying is an immoral basis for committing a country to a war
2. Bush lied as the basis for the Iraq War
3. Ergo: The basis for the Iraq War is immoral.

Even if we dispute 1), we are still given an argument, something substantive, even if it is wrong/unsound. Crucially, 3) does not need to be trotted into service to establish the soundness of 1), thus “cutting the circle”. 1) obtains (or not) on other grounds, making this argument “directional”.

If I said:

1. The Iraq War was wrong because George W. Bush lied to the American People
2. Bush lied to the American People because the Iraq war was wrong.

This would be a circular argument. 2) is feedback back into 1), and producing a vicious cycle.

Since the “defense” angle is “irrelevant.” does that make it a circular argument?

Actually, I would say no. Because to ME it is a matter of opinion that can be either disproven or disproven.

Not having to do with Logic.

Yep.

BTW—

(One reason I asked this was NOT to start a political argument or rehash some old complaints of good folks on either side of the political spectrum. I don’t want the thread derailed. Please. Nor is it intended as a barometer of people’s feelings towards Dubya
—I personally voted for him in the 2004 election. And I was basically for the Iraq War-although I feel there were some major missteps that were made and bungling errors and stupidity on ALL sides.)

Gotcha. I make no judgments here on Bush’s veracity, or the merits of the Iraq War.

The REASON reason I asked was because I actually heard someone about a year ago reply to the above statement with the words “That is a circular piece of logic.”
It was a conversation at a party and I didn’t press it—but I remembered it when I read your statement and post, Touchstone.

So, what do YOU think??? Can it be said to be “circular logic?”

I think not, for the reasons discussed above. It’s conclusion does not get pressed into service as the basis for accepting the premise; the premise obtains (or fails) on its own.

-TS

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Not circular. Not a restatement. We are going from something to something else:

1. Lying is an immoral basis for committing a country to a war
2. Bush lied as the basis for the Iraq War
3. Ergo: The basis for the Iraq War is immoral.

Even if we dispute 1), we are still given an argument, something substantive, even if it is wrong/unsound. Crucially, 3) does not need to be trotted into service to establish the soundness of 1), thus “cutting the circle”. 1) obtains (or not) on other grounds, making this argument “directional”.

If I said:

1. The Iraq War was wrong because George W. Bush lied to the American People
2. Bush lied to the American People because the Iraq war was wrong.

This would be a circular argument. 2) is feedback back into 1), and producing a vicious cycle.

Yep.

Gotcha. I make no judgments here on Bush’s veracity, or the merits of the Iraq War.

I think not, for the reasons discussed above. It’s conclusion does not get pressed into service as the basis for accepting the premise; the premise obtains (or fails) on its own.

-TS

Thank you for that. I knew the guy who made the “That is a piece of circular logic” comment had to be be off the wall on that.
It’s good to get the truth from people who know what the heck they are talking about…

 

[Touchstone]

Perhaps we are using different terminology. Circular logic repeats itself; insofar as the conclusion adds nothing. All logic must be circular; as the premises must lead to the conclusion; and the conclusion assume the premises; or the synthesis thereof.

I think you must be thinking of the idea that any lexicon is limited, and self-referential at some point. Take word definitions. There is no “intrinsic meaning” in a definition – words are just defined in terms of other words.

But the “assuming the truth of the premises” is equivocal here, as you have it. In a valid syllogism, we “assume the truth of the premise” PROVISIONALLY, as a “what if”, to enable checking the productive quality of the argument. But that assumption is wholly provisionally, and the premises are subject to challenge for soundness; this is how we actually establish the soundness of the argument overall; formal fallacies are trivial to detect (in many cases, they can be detected by symbolic processing alone!).

In a circular argument, though the dependency on the premise is not provisionally, but necessary and explicit. This is a different type of “assuming”, and one that is NOT subject to scrutiny, because it’s just a restatement, a tautology.

Conclusions depend on their premises, but circular arguments posit the conclusion as the basis for the soundness of the premise. That’s a different kind of dependency than depending on the premise, which is subject to testing on its own, independent of the conclusion.

1. is a synthesis of 1) and 2). 3) is a consequence of 1) and 2); just as it should be; but it is circular in regards to it beign a closed system with the repetition of the synthesis of premises leading to a composite conclusion; Logic is not an open system; ie; ergo it is cyclic; and adds no new knowlege.

Yes, you are right in that sense, and I understand what you mean now – see the comment above about “words just being defined in terms of other words”. In one sense, defining words in terms of other words is perfectly useless – if we are not familiar with the words used to define a word, or the words used to define the words used to the define the word in question… you have a “closed system” that in an of itself tells us nothing about the world.

Logic is the same way, and, detached from statements about the real world, tells us nothing about it. This is the basis for “rationalist” claims that “something cannot come from nothing” that are perfectly detached from the real world. It’s just a naked assertion, unconnected to reality around us, logic without grounding in the real world, signifying nothing about that real world.

Admittedly I was ambiguous; Circularity is accidental; but in the predication of Circularity with fallacy rests in soundness.

I can agree with that, and understand you know. But as I read your previous post (and suspect others may have), it was confusing the concepts through that ambiguity. The point you raise about the closed system is a good one, but a separate one. To the extent they both invoke “circularity” as a term, it’s prone to be confusing.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Thank you for that. I knew the guy who made the “That is a piece of circular logic” comment had to be be off the wall on that.
It’s good to get the truth from people who know what the heck they are talking about…

Well, don’t just trust that I know what I’m talking about. If I have done what I wanted here, I’ve pointed you to a principle you can apply yourself to this and other arguments to produce principled answers on the question, and to clearly understand in those cases just what does or does not make it circular. Just relying on me would be… illogical!

-TS

 

[JohnDamian]

All conclusions are recognative as knowlege is not a generative act; all premises themselves rest as conclusive or assumptive; and thus rest upon a real or tautological circularity.

Eliciting ambiguity by presenting conclusive or assumptive premises as composite and singular does not diminish their essentially circular nature;

Moreover; the recognative nature of later interpretations or synthesis is essentially predetermined by a circular consensus with regards to the first principles of observation or thought; be it real or tautological.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

All conclusions are recognative as knowlege is not a generative act; all premises themselves rest as conclusive or assumptive; and thus rest upon a real or tautological circularity.

Eliciting ambiguity by presenting conclusive or assumptive premises as composite and singular does not diminish their essentially circular nature;

Moreover; the recognative nature of later interpretations or synthesis is essentially predetermined by a circular consensus with regards to the first principles of observation or thought; be it real or tautological.

Took me about three readings to understand that, but I get you now…

Actually, your statements were easy compared to the time I tried to read Hegel.

There is NOTHING in the world like trying to read through PHRENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT without having one’s head explode.
Every statement qualified and re-qualified ad infinitum…

NOW I understand what good ole Georg meant when he said on his deathbed: “Only one man ever understood my book—and even then he didn’t understand it!”

For any Hegelites out there—I’m sorry if the above statements “offend” you. This is my personal opinion—nothing more. Yes, the man was a genius. Was he an ACCESIBLE genius? Heck No!!!

 

[JohnDamian]

Actually, your statements were easy compared to the time I tried to read Hegel.

There is NOTHING in the world like trying to to read through PHRENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT without having one’s head explode.
Every statement qualified and re-qualified ad infinitum

Hegel is easy reading compared to Duns Scotus… When someone is so strongly and methodically critical in philosophy that they are given the epithet “subtle”, and who’s complexity in argument causes the collapse of nine hundred years of Scholasticism you know that person isn’t exactly accessible…

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Well, don’t just trust that I know what I’m talking about. If I have done what I wanted here, I’ve pointed you to a principle you can apply yourself to this and other arguments to produce principled answers on the question, and to clearly understand in those cases just what does or does not make it circular. Just relying on me would be… illogical!

-TS

True indeed. I WILL say—at least you made it clear to me what you were talking about!

 

[FOFEBA]

Interesting topic. Just as it is not possible to disprove the existence of God with logic, it is also fairly trivial to show that the existence of God cannot be proved logically.

So, while logic has its place in religious discussions, in the final analysis, belief is a matter of faith.

 

[JDaniel]

Logic is the same way, and, detached from statements about the real world, tells us nothing about it. This is the basis for “rationalist” claims that “something cannot come from nothing” that are perfectly detached from the real world. It’s just a naked assertion, unconnected to reality around us, logic without grounding in the real world, signifying nothing about that real world.

But, TS, this might just be where Non-sense enters the arena of logical ideas and premises. Though the rationalist claim, “something cannot come from nothing,” may be a naked assertion, the irrationalist claim that “something can come from nothing,” is an embarrassingly naked assertion, and tells us an intuitively well known lie about the world around us. It’s just an embarrassingly naked assertion, “unconnected to reality around us, logic without grounding in the real world, signifying nothing about that real world.” I know you should agree.

Despite the intuitive nature of the so-called rationalist claim, it is a claim with quite a history, don’t you think? Now, you might say that, “Well, we just don’t know yet.” But, we cannot wait forever. It doesn’t matter that we don’t know yet. After thousands of years, we take a stand.

God bless,
jd

 

[JohnDamian]

Interesting topic. Just as it is not possible to disprove the existence of God with logic, it is also fairly trivial to show that the existence of God cannot be proved logically.

So, while logic has its place in religious discussions, in the final analysis, belief is a matter of faith.

Well; a necessary; active; conscious; willing; all powerful creator has been demonstrated to exist;-

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Interesting topic. Just as it is not possible to disprove the existence of God with logic, it is also fairly trivial to show that the existence of God cannot be proved logically.

So, while logic has its place in religious discussions, in the final analysis, belief is a matter of faith.

True--------

Unless:

A) When our Savior finally DOES come back;
or,

B) One decides to try certain branches of Mysticism/Kabbalah/Sufism/Pagan/New Age theology which emphasize KNOWING/EXPERIENCING God instead of “believing” in him. Wholly subjective but if you are into “I want to commune with God NOW!” that might be the way you want to go.

Caveat Emptor:
That almost certainly will not work. At least from MY experience. I’m willing to say folks like Meister Eckhart and Julian Of Norwich and Catherine Of Siena, but not a whole bunch of others. And I would stick to CHRISTIAN mysticism, not other heresies.

 

[JDaniel]

Interesting topic. Just as it is not possible to disprove the existence of God with logic, it is also fairly trivial to show that the existence of God cannot be proved logically.

So, while logic has its place in religious discussions, in the final analysis, belief is a matter of faith.

Welcome FOFEBA:

I must disagree with you ever so slightly, although the way your first sentence is worded, I may be misreading it. St. Thomas provided 5 proofs, about 800 years ago, that have stood the test of time and constant attempts at refutation.

God bless,
jd

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Well; a necessary; active; conscious; willing; all powerful creator has been demonstrated to exist;-

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

Thanks for that, John Damian! Good link!

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Welcome FOFEBA:

I must disagree with you ever so slightly, although the way your first sentence is worded, I may be misreading it. St. Thomas provided 5 proofs, about 800 years ago, that have stood the test of time and constant attempts at refutation.

God bless,
jd

Yes, actually he did. Impeccable ones, too.
Also, Anselm Of Canterbury’s great Ontological Argument has stood the test of time (despite Kant’s massive volley).

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, actually he did. Impeccable ones, too.
Also, Anselm Of Canterbury’s great Ontological Argument has stood the test of time (despite Kant’s massive volley).

Oops! I forgot good St. Anselm, although it’s an argument of a different type. I happen to think that certain logical concepts are, in some way, identical to the snapshots, in our brains, of ontologically real objects.

God bless,
jd

 

[Touchstone]

But, TS, this might just be where Non-sense enters the arena of logical ideas and premises. Though the rationalist claim, “something cannot come from nothing,” may be a naked assertion, the irrationalist claim that “something can come from nothing,” is an embarrassingly naked assertion, and tells us an intuitively well known lie about the world around us.

I think both claims are perfectly untenable; I’d be a fool to assert either, based on the evidence available to us. “Something can come from nothing” is just as rationalist as “something cannot come from nothing”, by the way, in that they both obtain totally free of any real world information or experience. It’s just a different intuition one draws upon vs. the other.

In any case, both claims could not be more ‘naked’ as assertions, and supposing one is more warranted over another, even a little bit is to compound the problem with more naked assertions.

We do not know, or have any reason to suspect, that either are true, or false. It is a perfect unknown to us. If you disagree, then maybe you will cite what makes one intution more warranted than the opposing intuition? We’ve never, ever seen anything “come to be”, and arguably, we’d be unable to tell if it did happen, so we have perfectly nothing to rest this claim on.

It’s just an embarrassingly naked assertion, “unconnected to reality around us, logic without grounding in the real world, signifying nothing about that real world.” I know you should agree.

Yes, and I’ve consistently said that’s as bogus as claiming “something cannot come from nothing”. They are equally maximally unwarranted. It’s maximally unknown. Note that just that, though, brings proofs like those of Aquinas that depend on “something cannot come from nothing” crumbling down. They cannot survive with that discarded into the “unknown” pile, where it belongs.

Despite the intuitive nature of the so-called rationalist claim, it is a claim with quite a history, don’t you think? Now, you might say that, “Well, we just don’t know yet.” But, we cannot wait forever. It doesn’t matter that we don’t know yet. After thousands of years, we take a stand.

Not if we take our ideas seriously, certainly not. That’s facile.

I don’t think it’s a matter of “yet”. Given our epistemic limitations of being “in this universe”, and the perfect consistency of this universe in a complete absence of anything “coming to be”, ever, anywhere, we shan’t expect to ever make headway on that area. Hawking and Susskind’s model is an interesting bit of theoretical extrapolation, and it’s substantively superior to religious intuition in that it at least is performative and coherent in this universe, but at the end of the day, it’s only extrapolation. It will ever remain a perfect unknown to us, so far as we can see.

For you, that sounds an invitation to “make a guess”, and that’s your prerogative, but that’s where you put the fluff in what you will later need to be solid and load bearing. Now your foundation is just a coin flip in the dark.

God bless,
jd

Best regards to you,

-TS