What is a circular argument?
All of the terms you mention are generally the same. Circular reasoning is conceptually similar to trying to define a word by using that word in the definition. A circular argument can often be reduced to the statement "A equals A". Here is one of the more famous examples of circular reasoning, which took place at the Miss America Pageant in 1994. The competition host asked: "If you could live forever, would you want to, and why?" Miss Alabama answered, "I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever." It's a bit hard to define but I think you can see the circular nature of the argument. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy and therefore we cannot depend on the integrity of the answer. It may well be true -- or not -- but the argument presented is not compelling proof.
Are circular arguments valid?
According to your definition of valid, then YES circular arguments are valid. A circular argument assumes the conclusion it is trying to draw ie the conclusion is a premise. Your def'n of validity states that if the premise is true, the conclusion is true. That will certainly be the case with a circular argument. Your defn of validity does not address whether or not the premise is true. Since you're asking this in the science and math section, I'll give you a scientific illustration. Your defn of valid is just relative motion. Right now I'm sitting in front of my computer, stationary with respect to the earth. Am I stationary in space? Only if the earth is stationary in space. The earth is actually not stationary in space, therefore I am not stationary in space. But relative motion does not care about this. As long as I'm not moving relative to the earth, I'm not moving. Your defn of validity is just like that. It fails to consider the possibility that the premise is false. *EDIT* Kat, the asker is not interested in the truth of the conclusion, but whether the ARGUMENT is valid. He went so far as to provide us with a definition of validity. You need to read properly. The argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the premise. Here is a direct quote from the link YOU provided: *** As noted by Simon Blackburn in A Dictionary of Philosophy, describing something as "begging the question" can be problematic because such arguments ARE LOGICALLY VALID. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is already contained in the premises. All circular arguments have this characteristic: the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was classified as a material fallacy rather than a logical fallacy by Aristotle... *** What makes the argument valid is not the truth of its premises, but whether or not the conclusion logically follows from the premises. That's why your link differentiates between logical fallacy and material fallacy. So when you said that circular arguments are logical fallacies, you were wrong. Your own refererences proved you wrong. They are material fallacies.
What is an example of a circular argument?
A simpler example would be involving the Bible and a potential conversation: Person A: "Do you believe in God" Person B: "Why, yes?" Person A: "Why do you believe in God?" Person B: "Because it's in the Bible." Person A: "Why do you believe in the Bible?" Person B: "Because it's the word of God!" The argument wraps around on itself, thus being a circular argument.
How can i stop circular arguments with my son? Everything i say is a smart remark .?
Ex your not going to ground me from the tv anymore, so i explain what he has to do not to be grounded. Then he"ll stop me mid sentence and complain that im interrupting him and never let him talk. This is one example, how do i stop this
Give me some examples of a circular argument?
petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises... God exists because the bible says so.... The bible is true because god says so... That would be a religious circular argument.
What are some examples of circular argument fallacies?
A circular argument fallacy is a type of tautology.Tautology: a statement that is true by virtue of logic alone, but is useless as argument (such statements can be useful in mathematics, for example, reducing expressions to simpler forms for various purposes.)Example:The red bicycle is red.This is also known as affirming the antecedent, or more commonly: begging the question. (See note below).Common forms:A is true because B is true.B is true because A is true.Or:A implies A.Or:Any form of argument where the conclusion occurs as one of the premises.Examples:Opium is sleep inducing because it has a soporific* quality.(*soporific; definition: sleep inducing)Killing people is wrong, so the death penalty is wrong.God is real because the Bible says so and the Bible is infallible—because it’s the word of God.Note: sometimes in modern usage, people use the phrase “begging the question” as another way of saying “elicits the question”. However, from the latin, “petitio principii” translated as “begs the question” as a fallacy, is a type of tautology, as described above. Usually the reader can tell from context which meaning to apply.Info in this answer was paraphrased from rationalwiki and wikipedia.Tautology - RationalWikiCircular reasoningBegging the question - Wikipedia
What is circular reasoning?
My favorite example is similar to Matt's. In arguing with Creationists I have been repeatedly told that any scientific theory that contradicts the Bible *must* be wrong because the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and God would not lie. In essence the argument comes down to two statements. A: "The Bible is the direct word of God." B: "We know this because it says so right here in the Bible." This is circular reasoning because the truth of A depends on B being true, and vice versa.
What is circular reasoning?
Circular reasoning is proving A by taking A itself as an assumption. At its base, it's the argument that "if A then A, therefore A". It's an infinitely recursive argument.Of course, in a real debate, you have to obfuscate this structure! So circular logic in practice tends to have quite a lot of extra verbiage and indirection. Since "if A then A" is a tautology--it's always trivially true--circular logic can be used to prove anything. You can even use it to prove that A is both true and false at the same time! It corresponds to defining a proof with an infinite amount of steps, which is not valid.So we can think of circular reasoning as [math]a \to a \vdash a[/math]. Hey, that looks familiar! It corresponds to the type of fix:fix :: forall a. (a -> a) -> afix f = f (fix f)fix is the fixed-point function. It can be used to implement arbitrary recursion. This means it can lead to infinite loops! It can also be used to implement any type, which means it corresponds to a proof for any proposition. You could even prove the proposition false.fix id :: forall a. afix id :: VoidSo, by Curry-Howard, circular logic is like unrestricted recursion. Adding circular logic turns your programming language into a Turing-complete one and, equivalently, turns your logic into an inconsistent one. Meaning you can use it to prove anything. Not very useful for making coherent arguments!