Easy explanation of circular logic

[sketerpot]

How do you explain circular logic to idiots?

I recently came across a thread on another board where almost every post boiled down to "I have seen a lot of good things happen, all of which I attribute to God because I believe in Him, therefore I believe in God." I wrote a long post flaming these people and explaining again and again that they were using circular logic. But I doubt that they'll understand my explanations, elementary as they were.

Is there some way to explain this basic principle of logic in such a way that even average people can understand it, and connect it to their own fallacious argument? Some sound bites, or a concise explanation that doesn't use any big words like "premise" or "assumption"?

[Lord Zentei]

How do you explain circular logic to idiots?

I recently came across a thread on another board where almost every post boiled down to "I have seen a lot of good things happen, all of which I attribute to God because I believe in Him, therefore I believe in God." I wrote a long post flaming these people and explaining again and again that they were using circular logic. But I doubt that they'll understand my explanations, elementary as they were.

Is there some way to explain this basic principle of logic in such a way that even average people can understand it, and connect it to their own fallacious argument? Some sound bites, or a concise explanation that doesn't use any big words like "premise" or "assumption"?

On a similar note, is it possible to explain circular logic to a piece of wood?

I fear the answer is "no" in both cases. Too few braincells.


You might want to try obvious examples, like:

"I have seen many crimes committed in this neighbourhood, all of which I attribute to Mr Smith because I think he is guilty, therefore I think he is guilty".

"I have read many poems, all of which I attribute to my friend Bob because I think he is an awesome poet, therefore I think he is an awesome poet".

And so on...

[Spyder]

How many posts do you think you'll need to make before they turn around and say "oh, you're right. I'll stop being an idiot now."

When dealing with people that say things like "I believe in God because of my faith...in God" then it's safe to say that their way of thinking is fundamentally broken.

[Darth Servo]

There's always the "plain English translation" approach: they believe because they believe.

[Setzer]

Ever watch Eric the Viking?

"Why do you go on these expeditions?"
"To loot and pillage"
"And why do you have to do that?"
"To pay for the next expedition"

[Patrick Degan]

The perfect example: "It is because it is because it is because it is..."

[Darth Wong]

How do you explain circular logic to idiots?

I recently came across a thread on another board where almost every post boiled down to "I have seen a lot of good things happen, all of which I attribute to God because I believe in Him, therefore I believe in God." I wrote a long post flaming these people and explaining again and again that they were using circular logic. But I doubt that they'll understand my explanations, elementary as they were.

Is there some way to explain this basic principle of logic in such a way that even average people can understand it, and connect it to their own fallacious argument? Some sound bites, or a concise explanation that doesn't use any big words like "premise" or "assumption"?

Tell them: "You're wrong because you're wrong." When challenged, explain "Look, it is a simple matter of logic that if you're wrong, then you're obviously wrong. Since you're wrong, that clearly means you're wrong. What don't you understand about this?"

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say

[Elaro]

How do you explain circular logic to idiots?

I recently came across a thread on another board where almost every post boiled down to "I have seen a lot of good things happen, all of which I attribute to God because I believe in Him, therefore I believe in God." I wrote a long post flaming these people and explaining again and again that they were using circular logic. But I doubt that they'll understand my explanations, elementary as they were.

Is there some way to explain this basic principle of logic in such a way that even average people can understand it, and connect it to their own fallacious argument? Some sound bites, or a concise explanation that doesn't use any big words like "premise" or "assumption"?

Tell them: "You're wrong because you're wrong." When challenged, explain "Look, it is a simple matter of logic that if you're wrong, then you're obviously wrong. Since you're wrong, that clearly means you're wrong. What don't you understand about this?"

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say

Yeah, but won't that make you sound like a hypocrite?

[Darth Wong]

Tell them: "You're wrong because you're wrong." When challenged, explain "Look, it is a simple matter of logic that if you're wrong, then you're obviously wrong. Since you're wrong, that clearly means you're wrong. What don't you understand about this?"

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say

Yeah, but won't that make you sound like a hypocrite?

Only if people think you're being serious, rather than lampooning the opposition. It's like calling Stephen Colbert a hypocrite rather than a satirist.

[Elaro]

Tell them: "You're wrong because you're wrong." When challenged, explain "Look, it is a simple matter of logic that if you're wrong, then you're obviously wrong. Since you're wrong, that clearly means you're wrong. What don't you understand about this?"

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say

Yeah, but won't that make you sound like a hypocrite?

Only if people think you're being serious, rather than lampooning the opposition. It's like calling Stephen Colbert a hypocrite rather than a satirist.

OK, but communicating satire through written conversation may fly way over the heads of those people you're trying to convince.

[Darth Wong]

OK, but communicating satire through written conversation may fly way over the heads of those people you're trying to convince.

Who do you think you're trying to convince? Remember that when you're debating a fundie, you're not trying to convince him. It's impossible; you'd have a better chance explaining Newtonian physics to a hamster. You're trying to convince an audience of fence-sitters. If there is no such audience, you're wasting your time. That's why, whenever I scout on other boards, I go to places which are not just fundie echo chambers. You need an audience of fence-sitters to make the exercise worthwhile.

[Surlethe]

Here's how I'd go about explaining it. All arguments have the same common form: a thesis, which is contested; a premise; and an implication. Symbolically, you have the thesis T, the premise P, and the implication P -> T. More generally, arguments often take the form of a particular premise whose truth is assumed, followed by a chain of implications ending in the thesis (this is often more useful for disguising question-begging). If the premise assumes the thesis to be true, implicitly or explicitly, then the argument is circular. In its more general form (the unstated premise fallacy), it's known as 'begging the question'.

For example, symbolically, the argument, "I have seen a lot of good things happen, all of which I attribute to God because I believe in Him, therefore I believe in God" boils down to

• A and B -> C ->B,

where A is "I've seen lots of good things happen", B is "I believe in God", and C is "I attribute good things to God". Of course, it doesn't follow anyway, but there's your question-begging: B, the thesis, appears in the premise A and B.

[Darth Wong]

You really think most fundies or even most moderate Net denizens are going to read that as anything other than "blah blah blah algebra blah blah blah"?

[Surlethe]

You really think most fundies or even most moderate Net denizens are going to read that as anything other than "blah blah blah algebra blah blah blah"?

Seems like my problem is overestimating people. I'd try something like that; if it didn't work, I could always say a circular argument is "one that starts with its conclusion". That is, however, prone to misunderstanding, like any soundbite explanation of a (relatively) technical issue.

[Elaro]

Oh wow. Mr. Wong, could you be any more condescending? ... Never mind.

I think Surlethe's explanation is ok, but it uses a somewhat technical vocabulary. Maybe a better explanation would be:

""When you debate, you make an unproven claim about things (for example, "pie is good"). Then, you support your claim with other claims which are proven* to be true, aka facts (for examples, "pie has sugar in it" and "sugar is good"). You then make a connection between your facts and your claim ("pie is good because it has sugar in it"). A circular argument is using your claim as part of your facts. For example, "pie is good because pie is good." the trick is to recognize when you or the opposition is doing this.""

Is that good?

[Dark Hellion]

Debate some people on a board like the old GP4teens sometimes and you'll realize that they do not actually understand the process of logic at all, and any explaination of why logic should be used will not work. They listen to whoever screams loudest or makes the most extreme point that they want to hear, they tune out anything else.

[sketerpot]

Oh wow. Mr. Wong, could you be any more condescending? ... Never mind.

No no, this warrants discussion. You're not condescending enough, and that is why you gave a perfectly solid explanation that is going to be way beyond the reading comprehension skills of the average Internet Dumbass.

These are people who think in 5-second soundbites, insofar as what they do can be called "thinking". After thinking about it, I figure the best way to explain this to them is to reduce their arguments to "I believe therefore I think these things are miracles so I beleve! also i liek to eat toothpaste!!" This has just the right mixture of simplicity and scorn to prod them into expending the tiny quantum of thought required to partially grasp the soundbite.

Now to test out my theoretical result in practice....

[PainRack]

Oh wow. Mr. Wong, could you be any more condescending? ... Never mind.

I think Surlethe's explanation is ok, but it uses a somewhat technical vocabulary. Maybe a better explanation would be:

""When you debate, you make an unproven claim about things (for example, "pie is good"). Then, you support your claim with other claims which are proven* to be true, aka facts (for examples, "pie has sugar in it" and "sugar is good"). You then make a connection between your facts and your claim ("pie is good because it has sugar in it"). A circular argument is using your claim as part of your facts. For example, "pie is good because pie is good." the trick is to recognize when you or the opposition is doing this.""

Is that good?

Hate to be an echoer, but chances are if one scans your post in just ten second, they won't understand what you're talking about.

[Hobot]

Ever watch Eric the Viking?

"Why do you go on these expeditions?"
"To loot and pillage"
"And why do you have to do that?"
"To pay for the next expedition"

Personally, I think this is the best explanation of circular logic for idiots.

It's short, light-hearted, and humourous. I think even a child would find this funny and therefor see the fault in the logic.

[Elaro]

I see. Would a one-phrase-per-paragraph work?

"Example of circular logic:

"Pie is healthy. (<-- Claim: what you're trying to prove.)

This is true because pie is healthy."

It's using your claim to prove your claim. It's unconvincing."

I don't think understanding this could take any less effort. But maybe I'm wrong.

[Hobot]

I think the problem with that example is that it's bit too simple.

People will just look at that and think "that's a dumb argument" and they'd be right but the wouldn't care to think why it's a dumb argument. As far as they're concerned, it sounds dumb and that's good enough to dismiss it. So all they'll get from an example like that is "circular arguments sound dumb." However, that's obviously not a good enough explanation. You can make circular reasoning sound intelligent to the average person easily if you really want to; all you have to do is throw in large words and other things that don't really have relevance to the argument but sound impressive.