Circular Logic

[Naiilo]

Is circular logic bad to use in day-to-day conversation? If so, why is it bad? What logic is suitable for what occasion? Is there an unspoken rule that I skimmed by too quickly?

-Naiilo

[JamesSavik]

Is circular logic bad to use in day-to-day conversation? If so, why is it bad? What logic is suitable for what occasion? Is there an unspoken rule that I skimmed by too quickly?

-Naiilo

You've been reading those deconstructionist websites haven't you?

Sigh. OK. One more time.

This is your brain: :smt041

This is your brain on de-constructionism: :smt096

Any questions?

Just say no!

( :smt110 )

[Naiilo]

no, i have not been reading that decontructionalist stuff. I happen to be a fan of circular logic. It's a fun way to play with conversations. Unfotunately many people I meet can't keep up. The only person so far to best my logic verbally is my best friend, and only then because he is so stubborn.

-Naiilo

[Tanuki Racoon]

no, i have not been reading that decontructionalist stuff. I happen to be a fan of circular logic. It's a fun way to play with conversations. Unfotunately many people I meet can't keep up. The only person so far to best my logic verbally is my best friend, and only then because he is so stubborn.

Circular Logic is NOT real logic. It's a fallacy.

However, I often use it to tormet those who aren't swift on the uptake :)

-- wbms

[Graeme]

Technically, I would argue that circular logic IS logic. It is a self-consistent sequence of arguments to indicate a point. Of course, using an assumption to prove that the assumption is true is rather self-defeating, but all systems of logic work off basic axioms which are just assumed to be true. Circular logic just allows you to pick those basic axioms, and then demonstrate that they are true (after all, you start with they assumption that they are true).

Graeme

This is post is purely for the purpose of arguing, rather than for any intrinsic deep meaning. If you have a life, you are free to stop reading.

[Tanuki Racoon]

Technically, I would argue that circular logic IS logic. It is a self-consistent sequence of arguments to indicate a point. Of course, using an assumption to prove that the assumption is true is rather self-defeating, but all systems of logic work off basic axioms which are just assumed to be true. Circular logic just allows you to pick those basic axioms, and then demonstrate that they are true (after all, you start with they assumption that they are true)

I have to concede you are correct. However never "assume" anything because _______________.....

[Rad]

It never ceased to amaze how I canalways learn new things from here. Take this circular logic for example. I didn't know what that was, but thanks to Graeme now I have a vague idea what that is.

From what Graeme said I think I agreee that circular logic is a logic. Any different ideas?

Cheers!

Rad

[Tragic Rabbit]

It never ceased to amaze how I canalways learn new things from here. Take this circular logic for example. I didn't know what that was, but thanks to Graeme now I have a vague idea what that is.

From what Graeme said I think I agreee that circular logic is a logic. Any different ideas?

Cheers!

Rad

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~invar/circular.html#1

Kisses,

TR

[aj]

LOL, TR. great site.

for those who are still wondering...

Circular logic is when you assert that an unproven statement is true, and you demonstrate that it's true by using the same statement in your proof.

I would take issue with those who assert that this is a type of logic--it isn't. Logic doesn't assume anything is true until it has been run through a series of steps, checking for consistency with axioms, which are known to be demonstrably true: if a is true, then a is true; if a is true, then b is true and if b is true, then c is true and therefore, if a is true, then c is true.

The difference is that no assumptions are made in true logic.

cheers!

aj

[aj]

Interestingly, one of the major institutions of our times is based on circular logic: the christian faith.

Christianity starts with the unproven assumption that God exists, and then goes on to prove the existence of God by basing any logic they apply to the religion on the assumption that God exists. This is why religion is so frustrating for those who base their thinking on logic--religion in general is a non-logical way of thinking. It's all based on faith, which is essentially an emotional response.

cheers!

aj

[Graeme]

Logic doesn't assume anything is true until it has been run through a series of steps, checking for consistency with axioms, which are known to be demonstrably true: if a is true, then a is true; if a is true, then b is true and if b is true, then c is true and therefore, if a is true, then c is true.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Axioms are not "demonstrably true" -- if they were, they would not be axioms. They are "truths" that are merely assumed to be true because it appears to be obvious.

A very simple example. It is not possible to prove the world exists. After all, everything, including this post, could just be all in your imagination. The idea you have senses could just be wishful thinking. However, it is generally accepted as a "truth" because it appears to be obvious. It is not, however, "demonstrably true". Any attempt at demonstrating that this is true would need to include the assumption that you can sense the world -- and would be a good example of circular logic!

Graeme

[aj]

LOL...far be it from me to engage in an indepth discussion of epistemology and metaphysics...the equivalent of an unarmed person taking on Arnie Schwartzeneger. I did a little reading about Cartesian reasoning after reading your note, and i wasn't convinced by his reasoning either.

Perhaps the Zen Buddhists are right, and it's all illusion. I don't know. However, speaking within the bounds of 'commonly accepted inferential logic', circular logic is not true logic.

cheers,

another drone within the Matrix