More Discussions on the Phrase “Circular Reasoning”: Mr. Lundahl Gets Needlessly Sidetracked with Terminology
Kevin R. Henke
September 23, 2022
Lundahl (2022q) responds to my comments on circular reasoning from Henke (2022ab):
Henke (2022ab): “Lundahl (2022i) Does not Understand the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning and, Yes, the Wizard of Oz is Fiction”
Lundahl (2022q) then states:
“Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary of English usage, not a topical dictionary of correct formal logic.
A circular definition is a fault in logic. A circular explanation is a fault in logic. A circular proof or demonstration (these mean the same thing!) is a fault in logic. BUT a "circle" with A explaining B, and B proving (or demonstrating with evidence) A is not a vicious circle. The only somewhat proper way in which one could use "circular reasoning" in logic would be to use it as a header for a group of fallacies, namely one comprising the actual fallacies circular definition, circular explanation, and circular proof - what he presumably meant to accuse me of.
Here is a work much more appropriate than either OED or Merriam Webster:
https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/54“
I fully recognize that the Oxford English Dictionary is not a dictionary for correct and formal logic. Similarly, I would probably find some of the definitions for geological and other science terms in this dictionary to be inadequate. This is why chemists, geologists, and other scientists have their own specialized dictionaries. Nevertheless, as stated in Henke (2022ab), I actually recommended the logic textbook, Copi and Cohen (1994), for individuals that want to learn more about logical fallacies. In Henke (2022ab), I simply quoted the Oxford English Dictionary, which Mr. Lundahl prefers, to demonstrate to him that the term “circular reasoning” is commonly used and widely accepted among English speakers, contrary to the protests in Lundahl (2022i). Considering his misspellings, such as for “career”, and his haphazard misuse of English, such as inventing the word “undecisives”, I really don’t see him having any consistent justification in objecting to the phrase “circular reasoning” when the Oxford English Dictionary uses it.
Now, I have no problems with Mr. Lundahl using the terms “circular fallacy” or “circular explanation” instead of circular reasoning, if he wishes. However, if Mr. Lundahl is concerned that the description “circular reasoning” would not be a fallacy in the following circumstance: “BUT a "circle" with A explaining B, and B proving (or demonstrating with evidence) A is not a vicious circle.”, then at least his alternative “circular explanation” would also have the same problem. Mr. Lundahl would have to use the term “circular fallacy” to distinguish the fallacy from possible legitimate uses of circularity in logic. Nevertheless, as I showed by quoting the Oxford English Dictionary, that the phrase “circular reasoning” is commonly associated with a fallacy and so I don’t think that Mr. Lundahl’s concerns would be a widespread problem. The context of how the term is used would help to clarify its meaning.
I think that the phrase “circular definition” should be restricted to a circular reasoning fallacy associated with definitions. However, Lundahl (2022q) is very wrong to equate “proof” with “demonstration.” A circular proof should be restricted to mathematics and not used in science or history – see Henke (2022ad) and especially my reference Albert (1986). As Albert (1986, p. 25) states:
“It is now generally recognized that the concept of proof was improperly transferred from the domains of pure mathematics and logic, where it still retains its legitimacy, to the realm of the empirical sciences.”
If Mr. Lundahl wants to group several types of circular fallacies, such as circular definition and circular explanation, under the heading “examples of circular reasoning”, I have no problem with that either.
Lundahl (2022q) then recommends a logic book by Magnus (2017). This looks like a good book and a good recommendation from Mr. Lundahl. However, beginners may find Copi and Cohen (1994) easier to understand. By the way, Mr. Lundahl’s recommendation, Magnus (2017), says nothing about the term “circular reasoning” being inappropriate.
References:
Albert, L.H. 1986. “’Scientific’ Creationism as a Pseudoscience”, Creation/Evolution Journal, v. 6, no. 2, pp. 25-34.
Copi, I.M. and Cohen, C. 1994. Introduction to Logic, 9th ed., MacMillan Publishing Company: New York, USA, 729 pp.