Circular Explanations?
Kevin R. Henke
November 13, 2022
In Henke (2022fs), I discuss how Lundahl (2022q), needlessly gets sidetracked with terminology when discussing circular reasoning. I stated the following:
“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.” [my emphasis]
Lundahl (2022w) then responds to my bolded statement:
“Not the least. Here are three situations:
i
A proves B, B proves A, neither is proven by any third.
ij
A explains B, B explains A, neither is explained by any third.
iij
A explains B, and is either obvious or explained by a third. B proves A, and is either obvious or proven by a third (other than the one explaining A).
I call situation i circular proof. I call situation ij circular explanation. Both are fallacies. They are also different fallacies.
I call situation iij a totally non-fallacious explanation, a totally non-fallacious proof and the situation most commonly mislabelled by unbelievers as "circular reasoning" (a fallacy which per se doesn't exist) when debating with believers. You see, formal logic is rarely the strength of either atheists or agnostic freethinkers.
Mr. Henke shows off his incapacity for logic as well as for reading English.” [my emphasis]
Here, Mr. Lundahl is speaking in vague generalities and not accomplishing anything. He doesn’t give any specific examples or explain the differences between what he means by “proof” and an “explanation.” He also doesn’t define what the third “proof” and “explanation” are. I could, for example, define the following for his situation i:
A = x/2
B = ½x
Any third option: ≠ x/2 and ≠ ½x
Contrary to what Lundahl (2022w) says, x/2 = ½x and ½x = x/2 is a true statement and not a fallacy.
If Mr. Lundahl really understood logic, he would provide specific examples and defend them, and not just hide behind vague language, undefined terms, generalities, and unsubstantiated insults against his opponents. If he was logical, he would also not accept groundless stories, like Genesis 3, as “reality.”