Are circular arguments valid?

Question

I'm talking about the technical definition of validity, which says:

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion.

Heeltap: I meant exactly what I said. An inductive argument with true premises cannot entail the truth of its conclusion. It can only make the conclusion more probable.

That is why the notion of validity doesn't apply to inductive arguments. Inductive arguments can be considered "inductively strong" or "inductively weak."

Answer 1

This is a constructive comment to your Q and is intended to add to it's educational value.

I'm sure you meant to say: "A deductive argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion.

Not so, if we refer to *inductive* arguments where relevant premises do not entail, but only provide a degree of support for the conclusion.

For more understanding see: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html

"Most of the arguments philosophers concern themselves with are--or purport to be--deductive arguments. Mathematical proofs are a good example of deductive argument.

Most of the arguments we employ in everyday life are not deductive arguments but rather inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are arguments which do not attempt to establish a thesis conclusively. Rather, they cite evidence which makes the conclusion somewhat reasonable to believe. The methods Sherlock Holmes employed to catch criminals (and which Holmes misleadingly called "deduction") were examples of inductive argument. Other examples of inductive argument include: concluding that it won't snow on June 1st this year, because it hasn't snowed on June 1st for any of the last 100 years; concluding that your friend is jealous because that's the best explanation you can come up with of his behavior, and so on.

It's a controversial and difficult question what qualities make an argument a good inductive argument. Fortunately, we don't need to concern ourselves with that question here. In this class, we're concerned only with deductive arguments.

Philosophers use the following words to describe the qualities that make an argument a good deductive argument:

Valid Arguments
We call an argument deductively valid (or, for short, just "valid") when the conclusion is entailed by, or logically follows from, the premises.

Validity is a property of the argument's form. It doesn't matter what the premises and the conclusion actually say. It just matters whether the argument has the right form. So, in particular, a valid argument need not have true premises, nor need it have a true conclusion. The following is a valid argument:


All cats are reptiles.
Bugs Bunny is a cat.
So Bugs Bunny is a reptile.
Neither of the premises of this argument is true. Nor is the conclusion. But the premises are of such a form that if they were both true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. Hence the argument is valid.

To tell whether an argument is valid, figure out what the form of the argument is, and then try to think of some other argument of that same form and having true premises but a false conclusion. If you succeed, then every argument of that form must be invalid. A valid form of argument can never lead you from true premises to a false conclusion. "

nb: I too would like to ask: "Why is the thumbs-down dwarf here? You would think that an *ignorant*dwarf would have better things to do..."

Answer 2

It's technically debatable, but I would say that the only type of "valid circular argument" would be one in which the truth of the premise must be assumed in order to assert it in a cogent fashion or to disagree with it. For instance: "Truth exists." This statement already assumes that truth exists. In fact, you cannot even argue against this premise without assuming its validity (because if truth does not exist, how would you prove the statement to be false?). The only debatable point is whether this is a truly "circular" argument. Some might disagree - welcome to the world of philosophy. LOL

Answer 3

No, because a circular argument means that the conclusion is supported by premises which are only valid when supported by the conclusion. That's why it's circular.

Answer 4

Circular arguments are invalid because they are subject to the fallacy of Petitio Principii (Begging the question)

Answer 5

No - it's like answering the "Why?" question of a 4-year-old. It never ends and usually circles back to the original question.

Really short answer: No.

Answer 6

no, they are invalid. this is so because each premise points to the preceding premise as justification, thus you get a circle.

Answer 7

circular arguments are a last resort used by those who cannot actually provide evidence to support their logic.

bb

edit
why is the thumbs down fairy here? you would think that a fairy would have better things to do...

Answer 8

Only if youre arguing about circles

Answer 9

In a roundabout sort of way.

Answer 10

only if you like to argue, if you're married then....no.