Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors dub it circulus in probando ' reasoning in a circle ', [14] [22] or more commonly, circular reasoning. Begging the question is not considered a formal fallacy (an argument that is defective because it uses an incorrect deductive step ).
Circular references can appear in computer programming when one piece of code requires the result from another, but that code needs the result from the first. For example, the two functions, posn and plus1 in the following Python program comprise a circular reference: [further explanation needed]
The Cartesian circle (also known as Arnauld's circle [1]) is an example of fallacious circular reasoning attributed to French philosopher René Descartes. He argued that the existence of God is proven by reliable perception , which is itself guaranteed by God.
The inner circle focuses on exploring and analysing the text through the act of questioning and answering. During this phase, the outer circle remains silent. Students in the outer circle are much like scientific observers watching and listening to the conversation of the inner circle.
A broadly circular definition has a larger circle of words. For example, the definition of the primary word is defined using two other words, which are defined with two other words, etc., creating a definitional chain. This can continue until the primary word is used to define one of the words used in the chain, closing the wide circle of terms.
A sample argument using objections. Some argument mapping conventions allow for perspicuous representation of inferences. [12] In the following diagram, box 2.1 represents an inference, labeled with the inference rule modus ponens. [12] An argument map with 'modus ponens' in the inference box. An inference can be the target of an objection.
For example, a fallacious arguer may claim that "bears are animals, and bears are dangerous; therefore your dog, which is also an animal, must be dangerous." When it is an attempt to win favor by exploiting the audience's preexisting spite or disdain for something else, it is called guilt by association or an appeal to spite ( Latin ...