Logic

Hi, I would like to ask a question about Logic. There is a formal logical fallacy called "Circular Reasoning", are not all argument tho circular? The conclusion is always found in the premises. and then drawn from them into a conclusion.

Comments

Drawing conclusions from premises is not circular. You are going in one direction, from the premises to the conclusion. Circularity appears when you also defend your premises by appeal to the conclusion.

To illustrate with a somewhat informal but real-world typical example:

P1: The government of country A is hell-bent on territorial expansion

P2: The government of country A is expanding its military capabilities

C: The government of country A is threatening its weaker neighbors.

There's nothing circular here, the argument displays a relationship between two premises and one conclusion: the premises, if true, together support the conclusion. To explore whether they are true, and thus actually support the conclusion, we need to examine what evidence can be adduced in their support. Suppose P2 is uncontroversially true so that attention turns to P1. We ask the presenter of the argument how she can support P1. Is A's government really hell-bent on territorial expansion? Suppose she now adduces as evidence that A's government is threatening its weaker neighbors. This move involves her arguing in a circle. Even if

P2 is clearly true

P1 and P2 together are a good reason for accepting C

C is a good reason for accepting P1 --

all this gives us no good reason to accept that P1 and C are true (believing otherwise is the fallacy of circular reasoning) but rather gives us merely good reason to accept that P1 and C stand or fall together.

Upshot. Yes, conclusions are in a sense contained in, and drawn out from, premises. But this is not circular so long as these premises are not supported in a way that involves appeal to the conclusion.

Read another response by Thomas Pogge

Read another response about Logic