When we deem a conclusion to be true merely because the same conclusion is presupposed in the premise.
Definition:
Circular reasoning occurs when a statement or claim is justified by itself or by another statement equivalent to it. In this fallacy, instead of providing an independent reason for the conclusion, the conclusion itself is repeated in the form of a premise. This type of reasoning may appear logical on the surface, but in reality, it offers nothing new and confines the mind in a closed loop. For example:
“Peace means the absence of war”, and “War means the absence of peace.”
Here, it should be noted that neither term is defined independently, and each is merely described by reference to the other; the result is a closed cycle of definitions that provides no genuine understanding.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- It is said: “A is true because B is true.”
- Then it is said: “B is also true because A is true.”
That is, each justifies the other’s truth without providing any independent reason.
Examples from real life:
1. In politics:
“This law is just because in our political system, only ‘just laws’ are passed.”
Here, it should be noted that the justice of ’this law’ rests on an unproven premise. It is unclear what reasoning supports the view that ’our political system’ is just.
2. In religion or ideological belief:
“The holy book is true because its words come from God, and we know God’s words are true because they are written in the holy book.”
Here, it should be noted that the claim’s truth is self-proven, and no independent reason has been provided.
3. In education:
“Students must read the textbooks because important material is written in them.”
– How are you sure that the material is important?
– Because it is in the textbook.
Here, it should be noted that this reasoning merely refers back to the textbooks themselves, rather than explaining the reason for their importance; that is, without any independent criterion for evaluating ‘importance’, it simply asserts that the material is important because it appears in the textbook.
4. In everyday life:
“This method is the best method because it works better than all the others.”
– How did you find out that it works better than all the others?
– Because it is the best method!
Here, it should be noted that ‘being the best’ refers back to itself, and without any independent criterion or comparison, the reasoning is repeated in a closed loop.
5. In the workplace:
“This method is effective because the manager has approved it.”
– Why do you think the methods the manager approves are effective?
– Because the manager only approves effective methods!
Here, it should be noted that trust in the method is justified only by preexisting trust in the manager’s decision, without independent evidence or genuine evaluation. This reasoning remains trapped in a closed loop.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
• It leads to intellectual stagnation and inhibits questioning.
• It gives beliefs that need examination the mere appearance of reasoning.
• Rather than providing clarity, it creates a loop of mutually dependent justifications.
How can we recognise and counter it?
If you feel that the conclusion is just restating the premise, ask:
– Is there an independent reason to prove this claim?
– Can the conclusion be justified by a reason outside itself?
– If we disregard this circular and self-referential claim, is there still a reason outside the loop to accept it?
A suitable response could be: ‘If the sole justification for the validity of this conclusion is the conclusion itself, we’re trapped in a closed loop. Let’s seek independent reasons beyond this loop.’
Conclusion:
The fallacy of circular reasoning causes us to accept a claim as valid within a closed loop, absent genuine examination or independent evidence. Such reasoning hinders the development of critical thinking and openness of mind.