Circular Reasoning

The Definition of Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. A fallacy is an error of some kind.

Circular reasoning is specifically an informal logical fallacy, which means that its fallacy lies not in the structure of the logic (which would be a formal logical fallacy), but rather in something else.

In our examples of circular reasoning, pay close attention to point A, which is the circular reason.

Circular Reasoning Example

A. Back to the Future (1985) is a good movie.

Why?

B. Because it's an '80s movie.

Why are '80s movies good?

A. Because Back to the Future is from the 1980s, and it's good.

In this example, the arguer ultimately justifies that Back to the Future is good because it is good. The circle is a little larger than our initial example using Star Wars, but the fallacy remains the same. The larger the circle, the harder it is to identify a fallacy of circular reasoning.

What makes circular reasoning such a problem, though? Why can’t arguments and conclusions be self-evident, self-justified, and self-validating?

The Fallacy of Circular Reasoning

Why can’t Back to the Future be so great that it’s the reason for its own greatness? This is because self-validation is illogical.

Validation is the use of a second party (support) to prove the truthfulness of the first party (claim). In other words, a validated argument requires evidence that is not the argument itself. Thus, a "self-validating" argument is actually an unvalidated argument. It carries no logical support.

So what’s the problem with an unvalidated argument? The problem is, if an argument isn't validated then it can’t be proven, and if an argument can’t be proven then that argument can’t be proven logically, and if that argument can’t be proven logically, then it is flawed and therefore illogical.

Examples of Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning can be more complicated than A because A, or A because B because A. Let’s explore more complex examples and their flaws.

Circular Reasoning Example 1

A. The Oklahoma City Thunder are a bad basketball team.

Why?

B. They have never won a championship.

And why is that?

C. Because they can barely win a playoff series!

And why is that?

A. Because the Oklahoma City Thunder are a bad basketball team. Duh!

Some circular arguments are made bluntly as an appeal to emotions. They are intended to be funny. You must have heard people chuckle at these kinds of answers. In instances like this one involving a sports team, this humorous “reasoning” is harmless. However, you should never believe that a circular argument is valid because it made you laugh. The only thing that laughter validates is that you found something funny. It does not validate a logical claim.

Always watch out for logical fallacies in humor. Humor is a powerful persuasive tool despite it possessing little logical appeal. In fact, because logic is so serious, it is all the funnier to make jokes about logic at its own expense.

Circular Reasoning Example 2

A. Bill is a pyromaniac.

Why?

B. Because Bill collects lighters.

How is that proof?

C. Lighters create fire. Bill has hundreds of lighters. He also grills constantly, and burns his yard waste.

So?

A. So Bill has a fire problem. A real obsession. He’s probably a pyromaniac.

Someone might attempt to obscure their circular reasoning with misdirection. Slowly approaching their circular conclusion, the arguer tries to summarize Bill with all kinds of other words. He says he has a “fire problem”, and a “real obsession,” whatever those things even mean. Finally, the arguer throws in “probably” to deaden their conclusion, when in reality the conclusion is unchanged. The arguer ultimately argues that Bill is a pyromaniac because he is one.

Real examples of circular arguments are not easy circles. Those employing circular reasoning will use all kinds of ploys to hide their absurd claim. They may or may not be doing it intentionally. It is your job to clear away the nonsense, though, and boil down their argument to its essence. This might help them learn something, too!

Circular Reasoning Example 3

Circular reasoning can be extremely dangerous. If someone is convinced that something is self-validated, then they will not validate it themselves. When this happens, that "someone" might then use the invalid argument as validation in itself. In other words, something invalid might be used as a reason to act. The terrible implications should be obvious.

A. Reptilioids are the smartest space race.

Why?

B. They have accomplished so much.

Such as?

C. They colonized Mars and Mercury. Their ships travel at the speed of light.

What about the other space races? They’ve done a lot.

D. But not as much. What the reptilioids have achieved is greater.

Is that really true, though?

A. Yes it is. The reptilioids are just plain smarter. The reptilioids are objectively brilliant, don’t you get it? They have been and will always be smarter than everyone else.

The errors in this argument begin when the arguer begins to apply objective reality to a subjective statement. No accomplishment can be broadly, logically determined as “better” than another accomplishment. “Better” is a subjective term unless it is applied to an extremely narrow case.

For example, one could say that Cable A provides better electrical conductivity than Cable B because of several key measurements. This is comparing two specific cables using specific metrics. On the other hand, claiming that all the accomplishments of one race are “better” than all the accomplishments of another race is illogical, because thousands of metrics could be used among millions of people.

This false equivalence leads directly into the arguer’s circular reasoning. Now that the arguer has “established” this nonsense about achievements, the arguer doesn’t feel the need to establish further evidence. The rest, the arguer says, is self-evident. Throwing around words like “objective,” they justify their argument with itself.

Circular Reasoning Example 4

In our final example, circular reasoning is used by someone who might have a good point, but errs in their argument.

A. Energy drinks contain too much caffeine.

So?

B. Too much caffeine is unhealthy.

Why?

C. Overstimulating energy drinks can lead to heart problems.

How?

A. Because energy drinks contain too much caffeine.

Oftentimes, even someone with good intentions might use circular reasoning because they lack evidence. Logical fallacies find a lot of use where the facts are not researched or are unavailable. To fix this, the arguer can do a few things.

How to Avoid Circular Reasoning

In reference to Example 4, when asked “how” energy drinks can lead to heart problems, the arguer should instead reply with research from a reputable source. When hard proof is needed to verify a claim, it needs to be provided.

Furthermore, an arguer should be sure that their claim contains verifiable information. Even with evidence that energy drinks can contribute to heart problems, the arguer might find it difficult to prove that they contain “too much” caffeine. How does one even define “too much”?

Fig. 1 - Choose your words carefully, as "too much" caffeine is not necessrily verifiable.

An arguer should always be specific in their claim. Instead of saying flat out that all energy drinks contain too much caffeine, the arguer should present a more focused argument.

In other words, the claim is that energy drinks contain too much caffeine to be advertised without regulation in the US, due to their dangers to some of the audience. This claim is much more arguable than the claim that all energy drinks everywhere contain too much caffeine, full stop.

To succeed in a logical argument, you will need to narrow your argument and come with evidence.

Synonyms for Circular Reasoning

In Latin, circular reasoning is known as circulus in probando.

Begging the question (Latin: petitio principii) is similar to circular reasoning. Begging the question does not mean “there are questions left unanswered still,” which it is commonly and incorrectly thought to mean. Rather, begging the question occurs when an arguer assumes that an argument is true in order to justify a conclusion.

In this example, the question that is begged is, “Is his might actually unsurpassable?”

Although the arguer assumes this answer to be “yes”, there is in fact no reason to believe it is “yes”. Thus the question is begged, is it actually yes?