Difference between revisions of "Circular argument"
(→Synonyms: asserting the conclusion) |
(link to redirect - might eventually need a separate page; RW link; SMW) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | <hide> | |
| − | [[Category:logical fallacies]]A [[circular argument]] is any argument in which the argument's conclusion is somehow included in its premises; in other words, the argument "proves" itself by assuming that it is correct. | + | [[page type::article]] |
| + | [[thing type::logical fallacy]] | ||
| + | [[Category:logical fallacies]] | ||
| + | </hide> | ||
| + | ==About== | ||
| + | A [[circular argument]] is any argument in which the argument's conclusion is somehow included in its premises; in other words, the argument "proves" itself by assuming that it is correct. | ||
==Synonyms== | ==Synonyms== | ||
* '''argument by definition''' | * '''argument by definition''' | ||
| Line 6: | Line 11: | ||
* '''asserting the conclusion''': hiding the conclusion within the premises of your argument | * '''asserting the conclusion''': hiding the conclusion within the premises of your argument | ||
* '''begging the question''': {{wikipedia|Begging the question}} | * '''begging the question''': {{wikipedia|Begging the question}} | ||
| − | * '''presuming the conclusion''' | + | * '''[[presuming the conclusion]]''' |
** implying the conclusion within the premise | ** implying the conclusion within the premise | ||
** hidden premise | ** hidden premise | ||
| Line 15: | Line 20: | ||
"Redefining marriage to allow [[gay marriage|gay people to marry]] would be a bad idea because what's to stop us from redefining it again to ''something even worse''?" The ending phrase ''presumes the conclusion'' that gay marriage is bad, with no supporting argument. | "Redefining marriage to allow [[gay marriage|gay people to marry]] would be a bad idea because what's to stop us from redefining it again to ''something even worse''?" The ending phrase ''presumes the conclusion'' that gay marriage is bad, with no supporting argument. | ||
| − | "Journalism requires journalists" (as part of an argument implying that bloggers are not "true" journalists because a journalist is someone who works for a print periodical or the news department of a radio or TV station) [http:// | + | "Journalism requires journalists" (as part of an argument implying that bloggers are not "true" journalists because a journalist is someone who works for a print periodical or the news department of a radio or TV station) [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116658402338655384-lMyQjAxMDE2NjI2MDUyODA0Wj.html]. The argument "proves" that X is not Y by (re)defining Y in such a way as to exclude X. It's also somewhat of the form "No true journalist...". |
==Reference== | ==Reference== | ||
* {{wikipedia|Begging the question}} (Begging the question) | * {{wikipedia|Begging the question}} (Begging the question) | ||
| + | * {{rationalwiki|Begging the question}} (Begging the question) | ||
Revision as of 15:00, 21 October 2012
About
A circular argument is any argument in which the argument's conclusion is somehow included in its premises; in other words, the argument "proves" itself by assuming that it is correct.
Synonyms
- argument by definition
- the "No true Scotsman" fallacy
- asserting the conclusion: hiding the conclusion within the premises of your argument
- begging the question: Wikipedia
- presuming the conclusion
- implying the conclusion within the premise
- hidden premise
Examples
"Only God can give us real truth. Therefore any arguments which say that real truth can come from scientific analysis must be wrong, because they aren't based on God's word. The more you think about this, the more you will see that all other ways to the truth are therefore dead-ends, which leaves only God's word as the path to real truth. QED."
"Redefining marriage to allow gay people to marry would be a bad idea because what's to stop us from redefining it again to something even worse?" The ending phrase presumes the conclusion that gay marriage is bad, with no supporting argument.
"Journalism requires journalists" (as part of an argument implying that bloggers are not "true" journalists because a journalist is someone who works for a print periodical or the news department of a radio or TV station) [1]. The argument "proves" that X is not Y by (re)defining Y in such a way as to exclude X. It's also somewhat of the form "No true journalist...".
Reference
- Wikipedia (Begging the question)
- RationalWiki (Begging the question)