Logic:I don't understand circular reasoning. Can you guys give me some example?

In summary: In this case, the conclusion is that wave equations describe waves. I think it is more wave-like because it is more reliant on the premises - the wave equation is not proven, it is assumed.
  • #1
kntsy
82
0
I still don't understand circular reasoning. Can you guys give me some example?
From Physics section:"Wave is something satisfying wave equations". I don't know why this sentence is "circular".
Thanks:smile::cool::wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
kntsy said:
I still don't understand circular reasoning. Can you guys give me some example?
From Physics section:"Wave is something satisfying wave equations". I don't know why this sentence is "circular".
Thanks:smile::cool::wink:

It's circular if the companion definition is "A wave equation is something that describes a wave." That's easy. But a longer chain of apparently 'linear' definitions can in fact be a circle. There's a theory that all definitions in a natural language are circular. In symbolic logic one can assure the existence of a non circular 'definition' by employing an infinite series of unique symbols based on the natural numbers .
 
Last edited:
  • #3
kntsy said:
I still don't understand circular reasoning. Can you guys give me some example?
From Physics section:"Wave is something satisfying wave equations". I don't know why this sentence is "circular".

Hmm... that seems more like a tautology than circular reasoning. Based on what you quoted, I'd say it is wrong.

Circular reasoning is more like this:

We know the bible is the word of god, because the bible says so, and it must be true, because its the word of god.
 
  • #4
The problem with circular reasoning is that the statements "proved" cannot be incorporated into a larger array of statements which one considers true. If the statements doesn't follow from a more general theory of waves, then we cannot necessarily assume them consistent with this larger theory. They can only be considered as consistent with each other.

The circularity can however be treated as axiomatic in the sense that the theory of waves that follows from the wave equation are supposing that a wave satisfies the wave equation. The circularity can be seen as a ramp; whenever you accept it by "entering the circle", a larger body of implications can be treated as true.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
kntsy said:
I still don't understand circular reasoning. Can you guys give me some example?
From Physics section:"Wave is something satisfying wave equations". I don't know why this sentence is "circular".Thanks:smile::cool::wink:

Do you think its more wave-like than circular?
 
  • #6
Circular reasoning is that you come up with a reasoning that draws a conclusion, but hidden in the reasoning the conclusion was already presupposed.
 

1. What is circular reasoning?

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise. In other words, the argument is based on the assumption that the conclusion is already true.

2. Can you give an example of circular reasoning?

An example of circular reasoning would be "I know that the Bible is true because the Bible says so." The conclusion (the Bible is true) is used as a premise (the Bible says so) to support itself.

3. Why is circular reasoning considered a fallacy?

Circular reasoning is considered a fallacy because it does not provide any new information or evidence to support the conclusion. The argument is essentially going in a circle and does not offer a valid or logical explanation for the conclusion.

4. How can I avoid using circular reasoning?

To avoid using circular reasoning, it is important to use evidence and logical reasoning to support your conclusions. Make sure to provide new information and avoid using the conclusion as a premise.

5. Is circular reasoning always wrong?

While circular reasoning is generally considered a fallacy, there are some instances where it may be acceptable. For example, in mathematics, certain statements are accepted as axioms or self-evident truths, so using them as a premise in an argument would not be considered circular reasoning.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
844
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
664
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
945
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top