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

[SnugShaker]

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.

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

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.

I think people are often just thick.

“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…

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

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?

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.

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.

😂😂😂👏

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.

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.

Do they?

”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!

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.

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?

We really need an example of the kind of thing you have in mind OP

There's nothing clumsy about "an unmarried man" being the definition of "bachelor". It's very concise.

Why don't you just admit that you fucked up and didn't know what circular reasoning is?

Sometimes yes, I’ve seen it happen in debates where people dismiss a statement as circular when it’s really just defining terms.

This is your op.
Circular arguments are, imo, inherently flawed because making a statement then using that statement as evidence of the statement doesn't make sense to me.

Exactly, that’s my point. A definition isn’t an argument in the formal sense but people sometimes dismiss it as “circular reasoning” when it’s really just stating what something is. I’m saying those shouldn’t automatically be written off as flawed, because they’re not trying to be persuasive arguments in the first place.

This thread is now what I consider to be a circular argument. It's not going anywhere.

Is that the joke OP?

OP would you indulge me and pop up an example of what you are thinking of.

Really need some concrete examples for this discussion

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.

By people who don't know what circular reasoning is, maybe.