Changes

'''Circular reasoning''' is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by assertion]], often used by [[Atheist|Atheists]] and [[evolutionist]]s in which one uses a [[conclusion]] of an argument as a [[premise]] to that same argument, that is, ending where it began. This is also known as ''petitio principii'' or ''begging the question.'' It is considered invalid and therefore is not permitted by the rules of [[formal logic]]. Nevertheless, circular reasoning is the current trend in [[science]] or rather [[postmodern science]], respectively, when new discoveries are interpreted within the prevailing paradigms so as to appear to bolster it, especially by using the popular media.<ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=269|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false}}</ref>   

'''Circular reasoning''' is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by assertion]], often used by [[Atheist]]s and [[evolutionist]]s in which one uses a [[conclusion]] of an argument as a [[premise]] to that same argument, that is, ending where it began. This is also known as ''petitio principii'' or ''begging the question.'' It is considered invalid and therefore is not permitted by the rules of [[formal logic]]. Nevertheless, circular reasoning is the current trend in [[science]] or rather [[postmodern science]], respectively, when new discoveries are interpreted within the prevailing paradigms so as to appear to bolster it, especially by using the popular media.<ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=269|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false}}</ref>   

== An analysis ==

== An analysis ==

*Therefore, P.

*Therefore, P.

Each of these three conditional statements would be valid by itself. Together, they create a flawed argument, because P now depends on itself to be true. The line of reasoning ends where it began, and is thus a circle. The only difference between this and ''proof by assertion'' is that the latter attempts to use a single conditional statement--"if P, then P"--while circular reasoning uses at least two, and typically three or more, syllogisms.

Each of these three conditional statements would be valid by itself. Together, they create a flawed argument, because P now depends on itself to be true. The line of reasoning ends where it began, and is thus a circle. The only difference between this and ''proof by assertion'' is that the latter attempts to use a single conditional statement--"if P, then P"—while circular reasoning uses at least two, and typically three or more, syllogisms.

Circular arguments can be very difficult to detect. Circular arguments found in the professional literature, or in [[propaganda]], typically use five or six (or more) syllogisms.

Circular arguments can be very difficult to detect. Circular arguments found in the professional literature, or in [[propaganda]], typically use five or six (or more) syllogisms.

==See also==

==See also==

*[[No true Scotsman]], a specific example of circular reasoning

*[[No true Scotsman]], a specific example of circular reasoning

== Reference ==

== References ==

<references/>

<references/>

* [http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning Circular reasoning] by [[CreationWiki]]

* [http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning Circular reasoning] by [[CreationWiki]]