Understanding Circular Reasoning Fallacy

Logical argumentation is the backbone of any civilization that values evidence and rationality. A fallacy, which is a defect in reasoning, often invalidates the validity and reliability of an argument. One such fallacy is the circular reasoning fallacy. Circular reasoning, in essence, is a logical fallacy that involves using a premise to justify itself. Essentially, it’s when one proposition is used to prove itself, thus creating a loop without any substantial evidence or independent validation.

The Harm of Circular Reasoning in Argumentation

Because of its circular nature, circular reasoning fails to provide any new information or support for the claim it is supposed to prove. Just as in the Kalam cosmological argument, which proves the existence of God based on unjustified assumptions that are themselves unproven, circular reasoning perpetuates a cycle of untested claims. If the assumptions made are false, the entire argument becomes meaningless. For instance, the statement 'Magic fairies are real because they are real' is a classic example of circular reasoning. This assertion, while true by definition, does not provide any new evidence for the existence of fairies. It's equivalent to saying 'The sky is blue because it is blue.' This circular logic doesn't move the argument forward; instead, it confirms the premise without adding any persuasive strength to the argument.

Scientific Method and Logical Circular Reasoning

Some contemporary thinkers would dismiss the need for logical integrity in argumentation, arguing that we can hold beliefs based on empirical evidence without needing to support every single premise. However, this approach is fundamentally flawed. Science, which is based on the empirical method, requires that each claim be tested and proven independently. While a loop of circular reasoning can apply to each individual piece of evidence, it doesn't negate the necessity of validating each claim. The belief that every object or concept in the cosmos can be doubted due to potential circular examination is both impractical and irrational. To suggest that no concept can be truly known is to fall into a self-defeating position; it contradicts the very act of arguing for knowledge.

Returning to Scientific Reality

The principles of classical physics already provide a framework for understanding the natural world. These principles have been well-established and repeatedly validated through empirical evidence. Those who promote untestable, non-intuitive concepts often create a narrative that the universe must make sense on its own terms, independent of what we can understand or observe. This view is not only unfounded but also detracts from the scientific community's significant accomplishments in explaining the natural world. The cosmos, while vast and mysterious, is understandable through the scientific method. The promotion of a meaningless loop of beliefs over empirical evidence not only undermines scientific progress but also misleads the public into believing in ideas without support.

In conclusion, while circular reasoning might seem harmless in a casual conversation, it has significant implications for logical argumentation. It invalidates arguments and distracts from the pursuit of truth. The principles of the scientific method ensure that each claim is rigorously tested and supported by evidence. Moving away from circular reasoning and towards evidence-based reasoning is crucial for advancing knowledge and understanding in both scientific and philosophical contexts.