#circular reasoning

[fallacies-examples]

I'm not exactly sure what the term for this type of "damned if you don't, damned if you do" fallacy, but it's pretty much antisemitism 101. It basically comes down to starting from the conclusion (Jews/Israel are evil) and then giving whatever explanation of the facts you need to make your forgone conclusion look true.

As Arthur Conan Doyle put it, "twisting facts to fit theories rather than theories to fit facts."

(Here's an article about the study referenced in the second to last reblog. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/124674)

I think circular reasoning is the closest to what you're talking about. Circular reasoning is when the premises are supported by the conclusion and the conclusion is supposed by the premises (technically speaking an example that is like "jews are evil because they do xyz, xyz is evil because jews do it and they're evil so it must be" would be a more classic use of the fallacy but i think this fits too.)

[marshemillow]

The thing about sex negative misogynists that really gets me is the fact that they justify their own logic with circular reasoning.

Women can't consent to sex work!

How do we know they aren't consenting? Because they're doing sex work!

The idea that women can genuinely give informed consent to be sex workers is wrongfully discarded.

[tilbageidanmark]

"The Bible is true because it says it comes from God."

[pumpkinfreak]

Rambling about: The Horror of Faith

This going to be a long one.

I was raised in The Church of Christ. Now, these are Protestant institutions that shun the idea of denominationalism. So a COC (Church of Christ) disagrees with every organized sect of Christianity that you’re probably familiar with.

Lutheranism, Baptist, Assembly of God, Mormonism,Presbyterian

Every single organization proclaiming the word of god is wrong. A COC believes that the only way to worship god properly is to be exactly like the New Testament churches that are described in the bible.

To simplify what I’m trying to explain let me say this. A good COC believes that the Bible is the true, infallible, inerrant, inspired word of god. It does not use instruments in its worship service. It does not allow women to hold positions of leadership. It does not allow infant baptism. It teaches that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and must be done on a willing adult or anyone old enough to understand sin. If a COC teaches anything that is not in agreement with god’s word it is a false church.

Homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, dancing, drinking/ voluntary intoxication that is not medically necessary, a person cannot divorce and remarry except for infidelity. All of this has no excuses in a good COC.

The COC does approve of young Earth Creationist theory.

So I grew up believing all of these things. I believed I was truly blessed to be born not only in a country where I could worship freely,I was in the true Church of god.

Any questions or concerns I had about the legitimacy of the Bible caused me horrible anxiety, because I believed so completely that it was the word of god that doubt must be from the devil, or I must be horrible and evil.

But it was okay because I didn’t need to think about anything, I just needed to trust god and not lean on my own understanding. This is a real argument used on members of any Christian congregation. It appears like a gentle reminder to have faith, but it is really guilt tripping.

So little me tried not to think.

I ignored the logic and morality behind the temptation of Eve, and how god allowing the serpent to tempt her with the full knowledge that she would eat it but was somehow still grieved when she did? How is that free will, how is that the act of a kind and loving god. How can his be upset when he’s the reason something bad happened?

Just trust god.

How can god hate child sacrifice to Moloch, but also command the genocide of multiple people groups. Because of their sin I hear you saying… so the innocent toddlers and infants and pregnant women had to die?

Why would god allow Abel the son who gave him sacrifices he adored to be killed by his brother Cain?

How is it that Lot is a righteous man worth saving, when he is ready to cast his virgin daughters into the streets to be raped by a group of men so his guests are not harmed. If they’re Angels then I don’t think a group of human men will be able to harm them. Unless Lot isn’t a righteous man in which case why is god allowing him to be saved?

If God knows the thoughts and hearts of men? Why on earth would he need to test Abraham with the attempted sacrifice of Issac. Remember he flooded the whole Earth because the thoughts of men were continuously evil.

Just don’t think about it.

The scary part is that this belief system permeates American society, and it only works on faith, on not thinking too hard about it. People want to enact law based on this book and these people are the epitome of circular reasoning.

Thing bad.

Why thing bad?

God said so.

How do you know god said?

God said it…in his book.

How do you know it’s god’s book.

God said so in his book.

[gramarobin]

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Fallacies

The philosophy of fallacies examines the nature, identification, and implications of errors in reasoning. Fallacies are deceptive or misleading arguments that can undermine the validity of reasoning processes. The study of fallacies is a crucial aspect of logic, critical thinking, and epistemology, as it helps individuals recognize and avoid faulty reasoning. Here’s a detailed exploration of the philosophy of fallacies:

1. Defining Fallacies

Nature of Fallacies: A fallacy is a flaw or error in reasoning that weakens an argument. Fallacies can be either formal, involving a structural flaw in deductive reasoning, or informal, involving errors in reasoning that are often more context-dependent and related to the content of the argument.

Types of Fallacies: Fallacies are broadly categorized into formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are errors in the logical structure of an argument, while informal fallacies are more related to the content and context of the argument, including linguistic, psychological, and social aspects.

2. Formal Fallacies

Affirming the Consequent: This fallacy occurs when the form of the argument is: If P, then Q; Q; therefore, P. It incorrectly assumes that the converse of a true conditional statement is also true.

Denying the Antecedent: This fallacy occurs when the form of the argument is: If P, then Q; not P; therefore, not Q. It mistakenly assumes that the negation of the antecedent leads to the negation of the consequent.

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii): This fallacy occurs when the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It essentially involves circular reasoning, where the argument’s premise relies on the truth of the conclusion.

3. Informal Fallacies

Ad Hominem: This fallacy involves attacking the character of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. It diverts attention from the argument’s merit by focusing on the individual.

Straw Man: This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. The straw man argument is a distorted version that is easier to refute than the original.

Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): This fallacy involves claiming that something is true because it has not been proven false or vice versa. It relies on a lack of evidence rather than positive proof.

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy): This fallacy presents only two options or outcomes when, in reality, there are more possibilities. It forces a choice between two extremes while ignoring other viable alternatives.

Slippery Slope: This fallacy assumes that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect, without sufficient evidence to support this inevitability.

4. The Role of Fallacies in Philosophy and Logic

Critical Thinking: Recognizing fallacies is a key aspect of critical thinking. By identifying and understanding fallacies, individuals can better evaluate the strength of arguments and avoid being misled by faulty reasoning.

Epistemology: The study of fallacies intersects with epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge, as it involves understanding how reasoning can go wrong and what constitutes good evidence and justification for beliefs.

Ethics and Rhetoric: The use of fallacies in argumentation raises ethical questions about the fairness and honesty of persuasion. Philosophers examine the ethical implications of using fallacious reasoning in various contexts, such as politics, law, and everyday discourse.

5. Implications of Fallacies

Miscommunication and Misunderstanding: Fallacies can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding by distorting the truth and creating confusion. Recognizing fallacies helps improve clarity and accuracy in communication.

Manipulation and Deception: Fallacies are often used deliberately to manipulate and deceive. Understanding fallacies equips individuals to recognize and resist manipulative tactics in arguments.

Intellectual Honesty: Avoiding fallacies is crucial for intellectual honesty and integrity. It ensures that arguments are based on sound reasoning and evidence rather than on misleading tactics.

The philosophy of fallacies is a critical field that enhances our understanding of reasoning and argumentation. By studying fallacies, we learn to identify common errors in reasoning, improve our critical thinking skills, and promote intellectual honesty in our discussions. Understanding fallacies is essential for effective communication, sound decision-making, and ethical argumentation.

[poetryintheraw]

I have to read Plato for a class at school and I'm loosing my mind. It's just part of Book X from the Republic, but I swear this man is talking in circles. He keeps going on about how creating a "form" of a thing is not really creating, using the example of a couch and doesn't define what he means AT ALL.

JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T INVENT THE IDEA OF A COUCH DOES NOT MEAN YOU CANNOT CREATE A COUCH.

This man was probably so easy to distract when teaching. You'd start asking questions with the most obvious answers, and he'd go on a two hour rant creating the most out of pocket insane answers you've ever heard in your life using purely circular reasoning.

[ellewoodswrites]

I know I have boxes of old diaries from this age but sometimes I think I'd rather set myself on fire than read anything I wrote at that age. Fortunately (?), I believe it was entirely about some boy I was ~iN lOvE~ with, which is actually preferable to my later teenage diaries that were daily 40-page screeds about how My Parents Don't Understand Me and I Want to Be A Famous Writer and I Am Trapped In A Small Town and I Read The Bell Jar Again, etc etc. The usual.

I was cleaning out old hard-drives like 5 years ago and found fragments of a novel I'd clearly started around age 16 and it was soooo SERIOUS and self-consciously attempting to be literary and also clearly based on my (boring-ass) life where nothing happened. I loved it and hated it all at once. I also found a stack of undergrad essays that I wanted to burn because my sentence structure was so bad / juvenile. If I looked at my high school essays I think I'd expire of mortification.

I was also a prolific poet between the ages of 16-22, but thankfully I haven't re-read any of that, because I don't hate myself. A few of them won a few awards (just let me brag ok) but I fear that even reading those would be devastating to my ego.

And I am once again reminded that the only way one can be a creative is to free oneself of the fear of being cringe and just write and create and keep going, despite all odds. Because you WILL be cringe no matter what you do, and you wouldn't want to not be cringe, you know? Not really.

No one ever created anything great while trying not to be cringe. You need to be cringe to create: you can't create without being earnest and experimental and fully engaged with the work of being yourself at a particular juncture in time. So much of what we find cringe is, IMO, the evidence that we existed at a certain time and place and age -- that we had thoughts and feelings and skills that were very much in line with being a certain age, or that we were still a beginner (or at least behind where we are today) in whatever art we were engaged with. That we had beliefs and thoughts that were naive or of the time or embarrassing in hindsight.

But that's kind of the human experience, you know? It's definitely the creative experience. And I maintain you can't have good writing if you aren't prepared to have bad writing. You can't connect with people or get at the messy heart of being human if you're trying to seem cool or worldly or intelligent or perfect all the time, because that's not at all what being a human is about. No point to this, except perhaps convincing myself that I SHOULD go back and read my old journals and old poems and god knows what other ephemera of my writing life exists out there.

Just go write and stop trying to be self-consciously Very Literary (although you may be unable to prevent yourself from this urge, depending on your age). But I think you also probably can't get down to the bare bones of good writing until you write badly first, and then learn how to write more simply. So I guess go write badly (which self-conscious Very Literary writing is, IMO) because it's going to help you write not-badly one day (or at least better).

And if you can't write, go read fiction or consume some other form of storytelling (movies, tv, whatever). Go read magazines and newspaper columns and online articles; go read books about writing. Sit outside and observe the world. Listen to people in conversation at coffee shops, and observe their body language and the cadence of their speech and the way people don't really speak in full sentences. Look for the little details in people's faces and clothing -- closed over ear-piercings, bitten fingernails, nervous tics, a chipped tooth. Go to parties and ask people about themselves and really listen. A writer is a chronicler, an anthropologist, a satirist, and you can't be that without first being a listener and observer.

But also don't merely observe: go live your life, and fall in love and get your heart broken, and travel, and try things, and fail and fall over a lot. And try to observe and remember these things with clarity and humour and empathy (for yourself and others) even while you're living through the joy and pain of them. I remember sobbing my way through a brutal heartbreak a few years ago and having a moment where I thought I better remember how this feels so I can use it in my writing. And that's not something I think I would have thought five or ten years ago (and certainly not before that), and it made me laugh despite my tears because I felt that I was Becoming A Writer, even if my heart was broken, so at least I had that.

No real point to this. I suppose this is the writing advice I want to give myself, and I had better go and take it.

*me, reading something 13-year old me wrote* it’s giving baddie energy. it’s giving “how’d this child write something kinda decent”

[717soul]

Logical Fallacies Series: Begging the Question

The Fallacy Files: Begging the Question in Youth Sports Welcome back to our ongoing series on logical fallacies and how they sneak their way into youth sports. If you’re just joining us, we’ve already tackled classics like the Slippery Slope and the No True Scotsman. Today, we’re cracking open a fan-favorite among philosophers and the bane of clear thinking everywhere: Begging the Question. Now,…

[brianchilton]

Arguing Better

Anthony Williams | March 30, 2025 A brief scan of your social media will likely make you mad, no matter your worldview. You read a post that disagrees with what you are certain is accurate, and you feel yourself becoming angry. You cannot put your finger on the issue, but they clearly don’t know what you know and are being a jerk about it! You pray about it and don’t send that response. Or you…

[sunder-the-gold]

How Solipsism Can Lead to Bad Takes.

[pastordin]

The All-Encompassing Book of Fallacies: Chapter 4

Chapter 4: Formal Fallacies | The All-Encompassing Book of Fallacies Home | Media | Contact Chapter 4: Formal Fallacies Published on May 14, 2019 1. Definition and Characteristics 1.1 Definition of Formal Fallacies Formal fallacies are errors in the logical structure of an argument that render the argument invalid, regardless of the truth of its premises. Unlike informal fallacies, which…

[wat3rm370n]

Video screenshot is labeled false propaganda in all caps on red, the image is of Michael Flynn wearing headphones and a seatbelt inside some kind of vehicle, and the caption reads quote “always start out some type of laboratory environment because they’re experim�� (the video clip of Mike Flynn on a podcast video was posted on twitter by Jim Stewartson)

The assertion that infectious diseases are created in labs is confused circular reasoning for those born yesterday.

An example of those who are asserting that all diseases are concocted “in a lab” — this from Michael Flynn, the extreme conservative political organizer and pundit. Do people who believe this somehow think that history began with the time period of modern medical science? Have these people heard of the Black Death? Do they think the Hanseatic League had advanced medical research laboratories cooking that stuff up in the 1300s? Certainly would’ve made an interesting addition to the video game I used to play called Patrician III. It may seem reasonable to have questions or concerns about lab leaks, but these people are saying all infectious diseases come out of laboratories, and that is NOT reasonable. What makes it more bizarre and incoherent is that he said that the reason these infectious diseases are all made in labs is because the labs are developing vaccines and treatments… Why would… Um. It’s a circular reasoning to nowhere. I think most people wouldn’t believe this stuff if they just paused and thought about this for a moment. Living on autopilot is a serious danger in our current information landscape.

[theexodvs]

Current forms of AAC work, because non-verbal autistic people who use them tell us they do. And we know that they comprehend human speech, because they tell us they can through current forms of AAC.

[bluzlbee]

(spoilers!)HappyChaosDelilah'sDileema

(spoilers!)

the chaos of the universe, rambles:

infinite rambles infinite intelligence rambles

that the universe trys to understand itself the universe

so it rambles

and on dileema arrives

is the universal neutral, immoral, or positive

than the universe rambles, so we get different values

the universe is math tries to figure out

at what scale of value is in it being neutral, immoral, or positive

so it rambles, is that intelligence? or just rambles?

well rammbles in themselves are chaotic

this self fulfilling prophecy in itself is chaotic

so much like the guilty gear world,

Delilah's Dileema

Happy Chao Exist

What was Bedman's Solution, an absorption into the bed itself,

a final calling, is Bedman's choice of seeing it was the best choice

how the universe of guilty gear should operate

to pick the best moral positive choice possible

for if it isn't

the problems of guilty gear will never solve

in the end, the self fulfilling prophecy

Happy chaos and rambles, neutral or immoral

Infinite Intelligence Rambles

That infinite intelligence can solve all the problems in the universe

is that feasible, is that possible

if it isn't, is the universe immoral or neutral

if it's immoral, it's chaotic

that will never end, so the gears are guilty

if it's neutral, the gears may be guilty, is that it in itself chaotic or neutral?

So the meaning to life question is

Are we guilty gears or just gears?

Delilah's Dileema,