The Fallacy of Circular Logic -- Why It's Used

(Background music)

Breaking the Fallacious Circle

Circular logic, a common logical fallacy in everyday conversations, hinders clear and effective arguments. It occurs when someone attempts to justify a claim by simply restating it in different words. Imagine a circle – the argument starts and ends at the same point, offering no real progression or additional evidence.

Circular logic, despite its flaws, remains a common stumbling block in communication. This essay delves into the reasons behind its prevalence and explores strategies to overcome it.

Here's how it works:

• The Premise is the Conclusion: The argument begins with an assumption presented as a fact.

• Going in Circles:  The "evidence" provided to support this assumption simply rephrases the initial claim.

Essentially, it's like saying "A is true because B is true," and then defining B as "A, but rephrased." This repetitive loop creates a false sense of justification without offering any new information.

Let's visit "the coffee example":

• Premise: Coffee is tasty.

• Circular "Reasoning": Because coffee is fun to drink, it's tasty.

Here, "fun to drink" simply rephrases the idea of "tasty." While some might find coffee enjoyable, this argument doesn't explain why it's considered tasty. Of course, a tasty drink is necessarily one that's fun to drink. It's not the product of another.

A stronger argument might explore the unique flavors, aromas, or stimulating effects of coffee that contribute to its tastiness. An arguement that builds and strengthens the original premise.

I don't really know why people may not think I know what I know when I present what I know in a question. If I ask why coffee is tasty, the question implies that I know, or think I know, that coffee is tasty. I don't see much point in telling me what I know once more when I've already looked for a reason. I asssume people do it because we are programmed to socialize, not necessarily to make sound arguements. I'll explain further later on in the article.

By recognizing circular logic, we can improve the quality of our arguments, better understand cause and effect, and ensure clarity in our communication.

Why Circular Logic Persists

One key factor is the confusion between reasons and premises. A premise sets the stage for an argument, while reasons provide justification for the claim being made. Circular logic, however, blurs this distinction.

Think of it like building a house. The premise is the foundation, and the reasons are the bricks that build upon it. Circular logic attempts to construct the house using only the foundation stones, offering no structural support or additional explanation.

Even philosophers, constantly grappling with complex ideas, can fall prey to circular reasoning. The sheer number of logical fallacies, and the ever-evolving nature of philosophical discourse, can make it challenging to maintain perfect clarity. However, recognizing this vulnerability, and even accepting it as an inevitable possibility, can be a part of the philosophical journey towards greater clarity than currently.

Another solution lies in cultivating a critical eye for reasoning. Here are some strategies to combat circular logic:

• Challenge yourself:  When presenting a reason, ask if it truly explains the premise or simply restates it in different words. Have you learned anything new, that doesn't already exists in the premise either you or others have presented?

• Seek outside perspectives: Discussing your arguments with others can expose potential circularity. Further critical thinking can reveal that you may be in an echo chamber, repeating not only the same thoughts, but the same reasoning, as if that reasoning adds into the existing one in a debate/chat/etc. Circular logic can be used to reinforce one's insecurities by appealing to emotion, rather than giving additional value.

• Examine the underlying assumptions: Sometimes, circular logic stems from unexamined beliefs, that only reinforces your confidence in them, rather than explaining them in greater detail. Analyze the base of your arguments to ensure they are not simply repeating assumptions.

By actively identifying and avoiding circular reasoning, we can elevate our communication and arguments, fostering a deeper understanding of the world around us, and deter ourselves from using further fallacies as a result.

While the established fallacies cover a wide range of errors, exploring new ways arguments can be dysfunctional can contribute to our understanding of logic. As such I devised a variant of circular logic,appealing to the state of the greater picture.

The Way Things Are Fallacy

Circular reasoning often manifests in a specific, frustrating way. This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to shut down discussion by claiming something is simply "how life is" or "the facts of the matter." While these statements might seem harmless, they offer no real explanation and hinder genuine understanding. They simply state what we already know. If you didn't know how something is, why would you acknowledge it as existing?

Imagine asking, "Why are some people evil?" Responding with "That's just how the world works"s, or "that's just how some people are". This fails to address the complexities of human behavior. It simply restates the initial observation without providing any insight into the root causes of evil.

The Way Things Are Fallacy is problematic for a few reasons:

• False Closure: It creates a false sense of closure by presenting an existing state of affairs as an unchangeable truth. This hinders curiosity and discourages further investigation.

• Submissiveness to the Status Quo: By accepting things "as they are" without question, we surrender the power to analyze and potentially improve upon them. This can lead to a sense of learned helplessness, practically enabling oppression in organizations and society.

• Disagreements Disappear: This type of circular reasoning shuts down dialogue and prevents productive disagreement, by stating the obvious and the established. It assumes the initial statement can't be altered, ignoring potential counter-arguments or even solutions, if the premise indicates a problematic reality.

Acknowledging reality is a crucial first step, but there is no logical need for redundancy. It might be a rhetoric or emotional need, but rarely if never, a logical one. In philosophy, the key lies in moving beyond mere acknowledgment. We must delve deeper by:

• Seek Underlying Causes: Instead of accepting "that's how it is," ask "why is it this way?". Explore the historical, social, or psychological factors that contribute to the situation.

• Consider Alternatives:  Is the current state of affairs inevitable? Could there be different ways of thinking or acting that could lead to a more positive/different outcome?

Why We Settle for Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning, despite its flaws, often becomes a tempting shortcut in our fast-paced lives. This section explores the social pressures that contribute to its occurance.

Society often prioritizes efficiency and productivity. We're expected to fulfill our roles – get a job, complete our education, meet our commitments, etc. Philosophy, with its inherent questioning and potential for social disruption, can be seen as a hindrance to this efficiency. This pressure can lead many to adopt circular reasoning as a means of maintaining the status quo and avoiding the potential complexities of deep thought.

Furthermore, philosophical exploration can be unsettling. Unconventional conclusions like nihilism or anarchism can challenge our established belief systems and force us to confront uncomfortable truths. This potential for disruption can discourage, leading us to settle for a comfortable, even if superficial, acceptance of the way things are. However, not tackling the depths of reality in our minds can be regarded as a form of escapism, alongside many activities that hinder us from such thoughts.

Reason's essence lies in providing new information and evidence to support a claim. Circular reasoning fails to add any new insights, therefore compromising its own value.

As to why people resume using circular reasoning in conversations, is not entirely within my understanding. I presume it also has to do with masking information from others. We might not be always interested in knowing or telling the truth, so we use circular reasoning to give the illusion of additional value, which "enriches" the conversation. Some people might not be even interested in the conversation's functionality. Some of them might want to discuss for discussion's sake. It's one of the reasons I often stay clear from social communication. I prefer learning, not socializing.

Our inherent human tendency towards illogicality further strengthens the case for conscious effort. We are not naturally logical creatures, and falling prey to fallacies is a common human experience, for it's both innate and normalized, as I found with whatabouism. 

The pursuit of philosophical inquiry should not be motivated by a desire for attention. The usage of circular logic can rhetorically be used to assert people's confidence in your authority, thus leading to a synergy between it and the authority fallacy. A professional who redundantly explains the same things, but in different rephrasing can be mistakenly seen as giving additional value to a captivated audience.

True philosophical exploration thrives on a genuine curiosity about the world and a desire for deeper understanding. While external validation can be the positive reinforcement insightful work, it should never be the driving force, when at its basic, philosophy is the seeking of truth. And the truth, no matter how agreeable or controversial, does not need external affirmation in order to exist. And you cannot fulfill this basic purpose if you use circular logic. You cannot seek your way out of a cardboard box if all you're doing is spinning around,like a record.

Conclusions

The possibility that some may find fallacies appealing further emphasizes the need for clear communication and critical thinking skills.  Just because someone finds an argument persuasive doesn't mean it's logically sound or even non-redundant. The burden of understanding lies on both the speaker and the listener to identify and dismantle fallacies to ensure more-meaningful exchange of ideas.

For those reading philosophy and/or being philosophers themselves, try to avoid circular logic as much as possible, even if answers like "That's how life is" or "It is what it is" may be regarded by many as a reasonable insight. All it takes to avoid circular logic is to distinguish between reason and premise.

Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback

I think global education has failed at preparing us better for one factual truth: We are all humans with our own cognitive realities we live in. I believe something that needs to be part of education is how to best interact with another reality and the main kinds of realities there are.

I think education is missing talking about reality with students. That and English classes should prepare students on presenting better structured premises. Debating and arguing should be a class for children at younger ages. Teach students how to better express themselves, not simply punishing students for trying to do it on their own. 

Circular logic exists because of qualia. People can’t understand why people have attached so much emotional value to something. They feel something and want other people to feel the same thing. Half the time it isn’t about the thing itself but the emotion it brings. Emotion is a strong thing.