Is the circular argument fallacy?

Question

The circular argument is like the following:

Premiss. P
therefore, P.

It's obvious that this argument is valid. Then in what sense could we call this argument the fallacy of circular reasoning? Could even valid arguments be fallacy? If any argument is devoid of cogency, then it is fallacy?

Answer 1

The argument is not valid at all because, in the first place, it's not a real argument. You have only one premise presented (P) and immediately present it as a conclusion. It becomes a fallacy because there is no actual support for your conclusion.

For example:
Because a bird can fly
Therefore, a bird can fly

Whether or not the conclusion is true (a bird can fly) is irrelevant (I think you might be confused as to what a "valid" argument is). The fact that the conclusion is arrived without any real premises makes the statement more of a repetition than an argument. In a way, it is circular reasoning because the supposed conclusion is simply regressing to the premise. No real conclusion is formed.

1. Argument is invalid

2. It is circular reasoning because it simply repeats the given premise (so in a way, it's not even reasoning at all. It's more like repetition)

3. No. Valid arguments can not be fallacies. If the argument is valid, it means it does not commit a fallacy.

Valid arguments (by definition) have a proper structure, whose conclusions follow logically from the premise. Fallacies have errors in structure and whose conclusions don't logically follow from the premises given. (For a better understanding, study by distinguishing validity, soundness, and truth of arguments)

4. No. Not all arguments devoid of cogency are fallacies. But, arguments devoid of cogency can possibly be (but not necessarily are) fallacies. Fallacies, however are always devoid of cogency. Confusing? Let me explain...

A cogent argument is one that whose premises would render the truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong), and the argument's premises are, in fact, true. Some arguments can be valid (not fallacious), but can still be weak arguments with false (not true) premises, and thus be devoid of cogency. (Again, differentiate truth and validity in what I said)

Fallacies, however, are already wrong in their structure, making their arguments invalid and weak from the very beginning. Thus, they are immediately considered devoid of cogency.

In summary:
"Arguments devoid of cogency are not necessarily fallacious, but fallacies are necessarily devoid of cogency. "

Answer 2

The ultimate cogency in knowing requires the ultimate proof, and the ultimate proof of any thing can only be the thing itself; to know something directly then would be a fallacy - if there is all but P then P is unobservable. It is impossible to know any thing directly or non-referentially and absolutely, everything can only be known through a prerequisite knowledge of other things through which we observe only the effects of the thing under inquiry as our premise. In this regard, the first, the second, the third and so on all other proofs of some thing to be are only indirect proofs, or partial premises; but this nevertheless is what constitutes the entire body of our material knowledge.

Answer 3

What you have described isn't the circularity fallacy, or begging the question. Begging the question is more subtle, and can't be demonstrated in symbolic logic because the circularity of it depends on the semantic meaning of the terms, not the form of the argument.

For example, if I said God exists, because the bible says so, that would be circular, because in order to give credit to the contents of the bible you have to already assume that God exists. You cannot formalize this argument and find a fallacy in it because the argument is inductive, not deductive.

Answer 4

You've not given an argument; this is a claimed identification.
X is a chicken;
Therefore its a chicken.

A circular argument is one that depends not on reality-based facts, evaluations or proofs drawn logically (non-contradictorily from them) and a concluding premises that one can check back against reality to see if it always works or not.

Cogency or convincingness or an argument to others has nothing to do with any scientific premise; it has to do with a pragamatic (impractical) Postmodernistic iie that you want to brainwash your victims into acepting.

Valid arguments cannot contain a fallacy; they must be both logical and realistic--true to space-time Reality.

Here's an example of circular reasoning:

We Bushites say Iraq has WMDs.
An Iraq that has WMDs is a place we need to reinvade.
Therefore, we Bushites say it's necessary to reinvade Iraq.

What's the fallacy here?
That the Bushite version of reality--the unattested, believed but not true existentce of WMDs in Iraq--was completely false.

The same circular reasoning was true of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, and of our
ability to use military methods to provide Iraquis with something othert than a totalitarian constitutional government, which given their pseudo-religious tyrannical philosophy is presently impossible.

That is circular reasoning--beginning from a false premise and justifying your false belief through subsequent or consequential arguments that lead you back to your orginal assumption.

Answer 5

Well, you're already inebriated and (by your own admission) this is going to be a no-win situation, so logically, the only winning move is not to play...tune that mess out. I've been around artillery and heavy aircraft for a protracted period of my life, and I've been married twice, so I can pretty much ignore anything!

Answer 6

Yes. Because it traps you in a pattern of circular thinking that doesn't provide for solution to anything. Its just a game.

Answer 7

P is the past therefore P is the present. What you are doing now is now the past. Just think about it.

Angel H