# Circular Argument A Circular Argument, also known as begging the question, is where one takes the premise of an argument and just restates it as the conclusion. You can think of it as just repeating the same thing twice. This offers no independent evidence or argument. > A circle argument **restates the same thing in different words**, trying to disguise it as an argument. Put another way, the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of its premises, rather than being supported by independent evidence. It is a form of [Circular Reasoning](Circular%20Reasoning.md). A circular argument fails to provide any real support for its conclusion because it uses the conclusion as a premise, creating a closed loop of reasoning. It's a problem of lack of independent justification. As an example, imagine that we evaluate The Inquisition's theory of cosmology against modern cosmology[^1]. This would be a circular argument. This can be broken down as follows. **Modern Scientific Perspective** * **Premise**: The modern scientific approach (scientific method, empirical evidence and seeking good [Explanations](Explanations.md)) is the correct ways to understand the cosmos * **Evidence**: Modern cosmology, based on the modern scientific approach, provides the best explanation of our universe * **Conclusion**: Therefore, the modern scientific approach is the best way to evaluate cosmological theories **Inquisition Perspective** * **Premise**: The cosmos is as described by religious doctrine (e.g., geocentrism, based on religious texts and authority) * **Evidence**: Religious doctrine, as interpreted by the Inquisition, states the nature of the cosmos * **Conclusion**: Therefore, the religious doctrine is the correct way to understand the cosmos **Circular argument: Evaluate Inquisitions Cosmology using modern cosmological (scientific) approach** * **Premise**: Modern cosmology is the correct way to understand reality * **Evidence**: When we use modern cosmology, it shows the inquisitions cosmology is incorrect * **Conclusion**: Therefore, modern cosmology is superior to the Inquisition’s approach to cosmology. The reason this is circular is that this argument starts by *assuming* the superiority of modern science. It then uses results from modern science to judge the Inquisitions cosmology. From that, it concludes that modern cosmology (roughly, modern science) is superior. So the circularity arises because the argument presupposes the validity of modern science's criteria to evaluate a system, the Inquisitions cosmology, that did not use those criteria in the first place. Thus, it does not engage with the Inquisition's worldview in its *own terms*, but rather from a standpoint that already assumes the conclusions it aims to prove. If we were to try and state this even more simply, the premise, evidence and conclusion all effectively say the same thing: modern cosmology is superior. > An argument is circular if at any point the conclusion is *assumed to be true*. In the case of the Inquisition example, we could get around this circularity in two ways: 1. Critique the inquisitions model on it's own terms 2. Highlight the problems that the heliocentric model solves that the inquisitions does not --- Date: 20240812 Links to: Tags: References: * []() [^1]: [Fabric of Reality](Fabric%20of%20Reality.md) chapter 4, pg 79