The fallacy of circular reasoning: a vast infection in public discourse
By Jon Rappoport
The simplest definition of circular reasoning is: assuming what you're trying to prove.
But that makes no sense.
Exactly.
As an abstract example---it always rains in Seattle. Today, it's cloudy in the city. Therefore, it's going to rain today.
Not necessarily, unless you assume up front that it "always"
rains in Seattle. You give the impression of proving it's going to rain
today, but actually you're already assuming that.
How about this? Mayor X is a racist. When he says he hopes
black people living in the city will help the police catch criminals by
providing eyewitness testimony, he's demeaning black people.
Well, no. He may be correct or incorrect in believing these
residents will, in fact, make reports to the police, but his statement
isn't, on its own, racist---unless you assume, in advance, that the
mayor IS racist.
And if you do assume he is, then you ought to provide evidence.
---To which some readers will reply, "What you're talking
about here is miles beyond what happens in real life. There is no
thought in real life. There are just knee-jerk reactions."
No, not among all people. Raising the level of logic and
understanding is an extremely worthwhile activity, and it benefits those
who can grasp the essentials.
Here is another example: "We know Senator X is guilty of the
crime he's charged with, because no one reaches the level of senator
unless he's been blackmailed for committing crimes." There are people
who would accept this as a given, but it's spreading a generality over
all senators. And furthermore, even if Senator X has committed crimes,
that doesn't means he's guilty of the one he's been charged with
recently. Perhaps, for instance, he's been charged in order to smear his
reputation, because he's supporting a bill that would endanger the
profits of a large corporation.
Here are three slightly different versions of circular reasoning:
"There is no reason to allow Politician X to air his views on
television talk shows. He doesn't have a following because his ideas
don't make an impact." Really? Perhaps his ideas make no impact because
no one will allow him exposure on national television.
"If the herbal treatment you're suggesting had value, it
would have been studied and tested at universities." Is that so? Maybe
it wasn't tested at universities because it did have potential value,
and would present a challenge to pharmaceutical drugs.
"Europe doesn't need a leader like him. He's a divider, he
sets people against each other, and we need unity." Again, the person
being marginalized is rejected by definition. Maybe he divides people
because he's the only one who will speak up against a unity based on
submission and abject compliance.
How about this? "The science is settled, and here comes that
professor with his crazy ideas." The professor is defined as crazy and
out of step. But maybe he's the one who will show the science isn't
settled at all, or shouldn't be.
"He's all about money. We want a better society where
everyone can share, but he wants to keep everything for himself. He's a
greedy capitalist. Capitalism is dead. It's been discredited." The
person being attacked is buried under a welter of preconceptions, with
no evidence offered as to why he's "bad."
In circular reasoning, the deception happens right at the
beginning. That's where the conclusion is embedded. Then, some
appearance of reasoning and proof are advanced. But there is no
reasoning or proof.
Here is an example I would call disguised circular reasoning.
It's a bit slippery: "Frank's cousin Sam was convicted of bank fraud in
1998. Now Frank has been brought up on the same basic charge. Wouldn't
you say that's a pretty odd coincidence?" Yes, it is odd, but if you're
going to imply Frank is guilty, you're going to need more than his
cousin's conviction. A lot more. Some people would call this example
guilt by association, and it is, but there is also the telltale
assumption of "proof" right at the start, when there is no proof.
"Look, I just counted 27 articles in respected newspapers
claiming that the Russians hacked the election. I mean, what else do you
want? The facts are obvious. So this guy who comes along and says there
is no evidence---he's spreading fake news. That's the other thing all
these newspapers are talking about: the pernicious spread of fake news."
Same basic approach, used with a bit more complexity: pile on the
preconceptions right from the get-go, and then make it seem as if actual
reasoning and evidence are being supplied to demean the "denier." This
is also an example of the ad hominem fallacy: attack the person and
ignore what he has to say.
"Three reporters from a website I never heard of just came
out with the crazy theory that people don't really have SARS because,
when they were tested, there was no sign of the SARS virus. That's
ridiculous. I don't even know what that means. These reporters are just
making it up. They're on the fringe, and they're looking for visibility.
Get it? They want readers to pay attention. This always happens.
Meanwhile, actual doctors and PhDs in labs are analyzing the disease and
have the actual facts..." By definition, by accusation, by attack, by
generality, this is assuming what is supposed to be proven, and no
evidence is offered to refute the claims of these three reporters. The
"reasoning" is circular.
Finally, here is an example that builds up even more vague
complexity, as a substitute for verification of assertions. And there is
no complete chain of reasoning: "Globalism is a structure with many
moving parts, and one can't hope to understand it by using a few simple
ideas. Across national borders, massive confusion could stifle the trade
of goods and services, if there were tariffs. Globalism eliminates
those tariffs. That's what we mean by free trade. These treaties on
trade are worked out with great care, and the result is the smooth flow
of goods. Besides, Globalism promotes an overall sense of international
cooperation, which is something we all need in these times of danger.
It's drawing the world closer together..."
This argument, designed to defeat people who oppose
Globalism, simply piles up a group of statements that define Globalism
as something good and necessary. The statements aren't connected in a
single chain of reasoning. Examine each statement and find its flaws.
Spot the vagueness. Figure out what is being omitted---for example, the
loss of American jobs when US corporations go overseas and thus throw
huge numbers of workers on to unemployment lines.
Circular reasoning: assuming what you're trying to prove. It poses as logic, but it isn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment