Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think there’s nothing wrong with a circular argument?

66 replies

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:00

People always dismiss circular arguments as if they’re inherently flawed but sometimes they make perfect sense. If something is true by its own definition or widely accepted as fact, isn’t that just reinforcing a logical truth rather than a flaw? Not all circular reasoning is meaningless - some of it is just common sense.

OP posts:
Floatlikeafeather2 · 15/08/2025 11:06

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:59

No, my OP was saying that what some people call “circular” can sometimes be valid, when it’s actually just a definition or self-evident truth. That’s consistent with what I’ve said since. I’m not changing tack, just clarifying because some replies interpreted it differently.

Show quote history

If it's a definition of a "self-evident" truth, then it's exactly that - a definition and not an argument/discussion/debate of any kind - surely?

Original poster
SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 11:04

niadainud · 15/08/2025 10:56

The definition doesn't repeat itself at all. The word is "bachelor" and its definition is "an unmarried man". Where's the repetition?

Just because you already know that a bachelor is an unmarried man doesn't mean it's a repetition.

Also a definition is not an argument.

If you said, "An unmarried man is a man who isn't married" that is a very poor definition owing to its repetitive nature, but it's still not an argument.

Edited
Show quote history

Yes, a strict definition is not an “argument” in the formal sense but people often lump it in when dismissing something as circular. Even in your unmarried man example, it might be a clumsy definition but my point is that some statements get written off as circular reasoning when they’re really just stating a definition or a self-evident truth.

OP posts:
irregularegular · 15/08/2025 11:04

”A woman is someone who lives as a woman” is circular because you need to know what a woman is to identify how one lives. And the only way to do that is to understand the definition of a woman…

I would say that is a circular definition rather than a circular argument. And I suppose you could stop it being circular by expanding on what it means to live as a woman without referring to women. I suspect it would be a very bad definition of "woman" however!

Isittimeformynapyet · 15/08/2025 11:03

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:24

No, it’s not about that. It’s a broader point about how some self-evident truths get dismissed as “circular” when they’re really just definitions.

Show quote history

Do they?

irregularegular · 15/08/2025 11:01

myplace · 15/08/2025 10:17

A circular argument would be All bachelors are bachelors.

Show quote history

A circular argument would be.

John is a batchelor.
How do you know?
Because he is unmarried?
How do you know he is unmarried.
Because he is a batchlor.

TheOtherAgentJohnson · 15/08/2025 11:01

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:59

Floatlikeafeather2 · 15/08/2025 10:53

So, in your op you're not defending "circular arguments" at all but saying that other people don't know what they are? You seem to be changing tack here. Is that because we're all saying that you don't seem to know what they are?

Show quote history

No, my OP was saying that what some people call “circular” can sometimes be valid, when it’s actually just a definition or self-evident truth. That’s consistent with what I’ve said since. I’m not changing tack, just clarifying because some replies interpreted it differently.

OP posts:
Bollihobs · 15/08/2025 10:58

InterestedDad37 · 15/08/2025 10:49

This is just going round and round 🤔😉😀
I'll get me coat 🙂

😂😂😂👏

niadainud · 15/08/2025 10:56

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:15

For example: “All bachelors are unmarried men.” It’s circular in that the definition repeats itself but it’s still true and valid because that’s exactly what a bachelor is.

Show quote history

The definition doesn't repeat itself at all. The word is "bachelor" and its definition is "an unmarried man". Where's the repetition?

Just because you already know that a bachelor is an unmarried man doesn't mean it's a repetition.

Also a definition is not an argument.

If you said, "An unmarried man is a man who isn't married" that is a very poor definition owing to its repetitive nature, but it's still not an argument.

VeryStressedMum · 15/08/2025 10:54

This is not the same as you said previously, but yes people may label a definition as circular if they don’t understand it.
But there’s no real reasoning behind a circular argument, the person making the statement or premise isn’t using logical reasoning to prove the statement they are using the statement to prove the statement’s validity.
sorry if I’m explaining it badly.

Floatlikeafeather2 · 15/08/2025 10:53

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:36

Not different, just clarifying. I think people sometimes label something circular when it’s actually just stating a definition or self-evident fact. It’s more a misunderstanding of the term than a flaw in the reasoning itself.

Show quote history

So, in your op you're not defending "circular arguments" at all but saying that other people don't know what they are? You seem to be changing tack here. Is that because we're all saying that you don't seem to know what they are?

InterestedDad37 · 15/08/2025 10:49

This is just going round and round 🤔😉😀
I'll get me coat 🙂

123ZYX · 15/08/2025 10:46

“All bachelors are unmarried men” isn’t circular because it provides more information if you didn’t already know what a bachelor is. The definition explains that it’s based on marital status and the sex and age of the individual.

”A woman is someone who lives as a woman” is circular because you need to know what a woman is to identify how one lives. And the only way to do that is to understand the definition of a woman…

TheOtherAgentJohnson · 15/08/2025 10:44

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:36

Not different, just clarifying. I think people sometimes label something circular when it’s actually just stating a definition or self-evident fact. It’s more a misunderstanding of the term than a flaw in the reasoning itself.

Show quote history

I think people are often just thick.

Original poster
SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:36

VeryStressedMum · 15/08/2025 10:30

Isn’t this different to what you said before?
Some people may state a definition or fact is a circular argument if they don’t understand what a circular argument is

Show quote history

Not different, just clarifying. I think people sometimes label something circular when it’s actually just stating a definition or self-evident fact. It’s more a misunderstanding of the term than a flaw in the reasoning itself.

OP posts:
VeryStressedMum · 15/08/2025 10:30

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:24

No, it’s not about that. It’s a broader point about how some self-evident truths get dismissed as “circular” when they’re really just definitions.

Show quote history

Isn’t this different to what you said before?
Some people may state a definition or fact is a circular argument if they don’t understand what a circular argument is

Thelnebriati · 15/08/2025 10:29

Your argument falls down at your use of the word 'definition'. You can't use a circular argument to provide/prove a definition.

MasterBeth · 15/08/2025 10:28

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:15

For example: “All bachelors are unmarried men.” It’s circular in that the definition repeats itself but it’s still true and valid because that’s exactly what a bachelor is.

Show quote history

That isn't a circular argument.

That's just a definition.

Floatlikeafeather2 · 15/08/2025 10:28

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:15

For example: “All bachelors are unmarried men.” It’s circular in that the definition repeats itself but it’s still true and valid because that’s exactly what a bachelor is.

Show quote history

That's not an argument of any sort; that is a statement of fact. Like others, I don't think you understand what a circular argument is.

TheOtherAgentJohnson · 15/08/2025 10:27

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:24

No, it’s not about that. It’s a broader point about how some self-evident truths get dismissed as “circular” when they’re really just definitions.

Show quote history

Well you haven't made that point yet, so get on with it or give over.

Jollyjoy · 15/08/2025 10:27

I am interested in your question but you’d really have to give an example of a circular definition that you think merits not being dismissed or devalued over a true definition.

YouMightThinkThat · 15/08/2025 10:25

"It’s a broader point about how some self-evident truths get dismissed as “circular” when they’re really just definitions"

WTF are you on about here?

NewYearNewName25 · 15/08/2025 10:25

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:15

For example: “All bachelors are unmarried men.” It’s circular in that the definition repeats itself but it’s still true and valid because that’s exactly what a bachelor is.

Show quote history

As PPs have said - that’s not a circular argument. It’s a definition.

Original poster
SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:24

myplace · 15/08/2025 10:18

Is this about the definition of ‘woman’?

No, it’s not about that. It’s a broader point about how some self-evident truths get dismissed as “circular” when they’re really just definitions.

OP posts:
TheSwarm · 15/08/2025 10:22

SnugShaker · 15/08/2025 10:15

For example: “All bachelors are unmarried men.” It’s circular in that the definition repeats itself but it’s still true and valid because that’s exactly what a bachelor is.

Show quote history

That's not a circular argument.

That's just stating a fact.