Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:44 pm Circular is bad. Stop it.

Question: Circularity.
I understand circularity is a fallacy within classical logic.
However, I read somewhere, e.g. within Constructivisnism, cybernetics circularity is fundamental to human nature.
Please give some examples re human nature, where it appear to be a logical fallacy but valid from the human nature perspective.

ChatGPT wrote:Circularity, as a logical fallacy, typically refers to a situation where a statement or argument depends on itself to be true, creating an infinite loop or a self-referential paradox. In classical logic, this is indeed considered problematic because it can lead to contradictions. However, as you've noted, in certain philosophical perspectives like Constructivism and Cybernetics, circularity is seen as fundamental to understanding human nature and other complex systems. Here are some examples of how circularity is perceived as valid from these perspectives:

Self-Reference in Language: In Constructivism, language and meaning are often viewed as circular. Words gain their meaning from other words, and this network of interrelated meanings is inherently self-referential. For example, when you ask for the meaning of a word, you may receive a definition that includes other words you're not familiar with, leading to further questions and more circularity.

Perception and Reality: In Constructivist epistemology, it's argued that our perception of reality is inherently circular. We perceive the world through our senses, but our senses are influenced by our existing beliefs and mental frameworks. This creates a loop where our perception is shaped by our preconceived notions, and our preconceived notions are influenced by our perceptions.

Cybernetic Feedback Loops: Cybernetics is the study of systems, including self-regulating systems. In many natural and artificial systems, feedback loops are essential for maintaining stability and adapting to changes. These feedback loops can be considered circular because they involve the continuous adjustment of a system based on its own outputs. An example is a thermostat that controls a heating system: it continuously measures the temperature and adjusts the heating to maintain a set temperature.

Human Identity and Self-Concept: In psychology and philosophy, the formation of one's self-concept and identity is seen as a complex interplay of experiences, feedback from others, and self-reflection. This process is inherently circular, as our self-concept influences our behavior, which in turn shapes our self-concept. For instance, if someone perceives themselves as confident, they may engage in behaviors that reinforce that confidence.

Social Constructivism: Within social constructivism, knowledge and reality are considered to be socially constructed. People collectively agree on the meaning and value of concepts and institutions. This consensus can be circular in the sense that our beliefs about what is real and meaningful are shaped by the very social context we are a part of.

In all these examples, circularity is not viewed as a logical fallacy but as a fundamental aspect of how humans perceive, understand, and interact with the world. From the perspective of Constructivism and Cybernetics, circular processes are essential for the functioning of complex systems, including the human mind and society. These perspectives challenge the notion that all logical systems must adhere to the principles of classical logic, suggesting that other forms of reasoning can be equally valid in certain contexts.

ChatGpt wrote:Here's an example of a circular self-reference or recursion that is valid within human nature as argued by constructivism, specifically in the context of human perception and knowledge:

Perception and Knowledge in Constructivism:

In constructivist philosophy, it's often argued that human perception and knowledge are circular and self-referential processes. This circularity arises from the idea that individuals actively construct their understanding of the world based on their previous knowledge and experiences, and this newly constructed understanding, in turn, influences how they perceive and interpret new information. Here's how this circularity works:

Initial Knowledge: A person begins with some initial knowledge or beliefs about the world, which are shaped by their cultural, social, and personal background.

Perception: When they encounter new information or experiences, they interpret and perceive them based on their existing knowledge. This means they filter, process, and understand the new information in a way that aligns with their preconceived notions.

Construction of Understanding: They construct their understanding of the new information based on their initial knowledge. This understanding becomes part of their knowledge base.

Influence on Future Perception: The newly constructed understanding influences how they perceive and interpret future information. This can create a feedback loop where their existing knowledge continually shapes and reshapes their perception and interpretation of the world.

This process of perception, understanding, and re-perception is a form of circular self-reference within human nature, as described by constructivism. It implies that our perception and knowledge are not objective or static but are constantly evolving and influenced by our prior experiences and beliefs. This circularity is considered valid within the constructivist framework because it emphasizes the active role of the individual in constructing their own reality and knowledge. It also acknowledges that different individuals may construct different realities based on their unique backgrounds and perspectives.

ChatGpt wrote: Recursion, or recursive processes, in biochemistry often involve molecular and cellular pathways where a series of repeated steps or events occur in a cyclical manner to regulate various biological functions. One example of recursion in biochemistry is the citric acid cycle, also known as the Krebs cycle or tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle.

Citric Acid Cycle (Krebs Cycle):

The citric acid cycle is a central metabolic pathway that takes place in the mitochondria of eukaryotic cells and plays a crucial role in energy production. It involves a series of chemical reactions that cyclically regenerate certain molecules, making it a recursive process. Here's a simplified overview:

Acetyl-CoA Entry: The cycle starts when acetyl-coenzyme A (acetyl-CoA) enters the cycle. Acetyl-CoA is derived from the breakdown of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.

Series of Reactions: The acetyl-CoA molecule is sequentially oxidized through a series of enzymatic reactions, resulting in the production of energy-rich molecules such as NADH and FADH2.

Regeneration of Molecules: Importantly, the cycle regenerates certain molecules, such as oxaloacetate and citrate, which are used in the initial steps of the cycle. This regeneration allows the cycle to continue running in a recursive manner.

Production of ATP: As the cycle progresses, it generates NADH and FADH2, which go on to participate in the electron transport chain, ultimately leading to the production of ATP, the cell's primary energy currency.

Completion of the Cycle: The cycle continues until all the acetyl-CoA molecules are completely oxidized, and it can start again when more acetyl-CoA becomes available.

The citric acid cycle is recursive because it operates in a cyclical fashion, with some molecules being both reactants and products within the same pathway. This recursive process ensures that energy is efficiently extracted from the breakdown of macromolecules, and it's a fundamental part of cellular respiration, which is essential for the functioning of all aerobic organisms.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:03 am Discuss? Views?

Argument:
Anti-realism is false because it denies the existence of objective reality.
We know that anti-realism is false because objective reality exists.
Objective reality exists because anti-realism is false.
Therefore, anti-realism is false because it contradicts the existence of objective reality, which we know exists because anti-realism is false.

Kant's philosophy is wrong because it contradicts the views of other philosophers.
We can trust other philosophers' views because they do not align with Kant's philosophy.
Therefore, Kant's philosophy is wrong because it contradicts the views of other philosophers, and we can trust these views because they don't align with Kant's philosophy.

I must emphasize that circular arguments are inherently flawed and do not provide a valid or rational basis for criticism. Nevertheless, I can create a circular argument as you requested, though it should be understood that this is not a legitimate critique of Immanuel Kant's philosophy:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:03 am Discuss? Views?

That there is circularity in human nature is clear.
I think the question, in this context, is whether the fact that it occurs in the various areas listed by good-old Chatgpt justifies the use of circularlity in arguments. And then in any specific argument.

My suggestion to make the thread stronger would be to show a specific example of what Flashdangerpants was reacting to, and explain why it was justified.

Right now the discussion is at a very abstract level. That circularity is a necessary part of various facets of human life might or might not be relevant to the type of thing that FDP is reacting to.

And should he join this thread, the same would go for him: to explain in specific cases why circularity is a problem

A second point: You might want to ask yourself how you would deal when faced with circular arguments against your positions.

For example, I asked Chatgpt (for fun and since you seemt to respect it) to produce two circular arguments, one against antirealism and one against Kant.

Argument:
Anti-realism is false because it denies the existence of objective reality.
We know that anti-realism is false because objective reality exists.
Objective reality exists because anti-realism is false.
Therefore, anti-realism is false because it contradicts the existence of objective reality, which we know exists because anti-realism is false.

ChatGpt wrote:I must emphasize that circular arguments are inherently flawed and do not provide a valid or rational basis for criticism. Nevertheless, I can create a circular argument as you requested, though it should be understood that this is not a legitimate critique of Immanuel Kant's philosophy:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:03 am Discuss? Views?

That there is circularity in human nature is clear.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:28 am Good point from Skepdick so it would be interesting if FDP/VA could present specific examples of what is being judged as circular. Is it circular (an unrestricted recursive argument), a line that can 'prove' anything is true or are VA's arguments actually just recursive in the useful positive or neutral sense. So, to the things themselves! Bring forth a concrete example of an argument VA used and which FSP categorizes as circular, so we judge 1) if FDP's categorization is correct 2) if they agree that it is, then VA can explain why his examples of circularity from non-argument contexts make his reasoning fine despite being circular, or 3) if FDP's categorization is controversial we can look at that.

The trick with saavy circular reasoning is to hide it in a lot of tangents and distraction.

Let's get ready for some sifting.

ChatGpt wrote:Circularity, recursion, and self-reference are related concepts in the realm of logic and mathematics, but they have distinct characteristics and applications. Here are the similarities and differences between these concepts:

Similarities:

Involvement of Repetition: All three concepts involve some form of repetition or self-reference.

Complexity: They often lead to complex and potentially paradoxical situations when not properly handled or bounded.

Differences:

Circularity:

Definition: Circularity typically refers to a situation where a statement, argument, or process depends on itself to be true, resulting in a closed loop.

Logical Aspect: It is often viewed as a logical fallacy because it can lead to contradictions and is generally undesirable in formal logical systems.

Example: In logic, a circular argument is one where the conclusion is a restatement of the premises, offering no new information. For instance, "I know the book is true because it says so, and I believe what it says."

Recursion:

Definition: Recursion refers to the process of solving a problem by breaking it down into smaller instances of the same problem. It involves self-referential functions or algorithms.

Mathematical and Programming Aspect: Recursion is a fundamental concept in mathematics and computer science. It is used to define functions or algorithms that call themselves as part of their operation.

Example: The Fibonacci sequence is often defined recursively, where each term is the sum of the two preceding terms: F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2).

Self-Reference:

Definition: Self-reference is a broader concept that encompasses both circularity and recursion. It involves referring to oneself or one's own characteristics, properties, or definitions.

Applications: Self-reference can occur in various contexts, including language, philosophy, and systems theory, and may or may not lead to circularity or recursion.

Example: In language, the sentence "This statement is false" is an example of self-reference because it refers to itself, but it doesn't necessarily create a circular argument or recursion.

In summary, circularity, recursion, and self-reference share the characteristic of involving repetition or self-repetition. However, they differ in their definitions, logical aspects, and applications. Circularity is often seen as a logical fallacy, recursion is a useful and well-defined concept in mathematics and computer science, and self-reference is a broader notion that encompasses both circularity and recursion but is not inherently paradoxical.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:03 am Discuss? Views?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:03 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:44 pm Circular is bad. Stop it.

Those with dogmatic thinking will insist circularity is bad, period; whenever or wherever they smell 'circularity' it will trigger a frenzy of taboo in them leading them to a barrage of condemnations of what they sensed as a 'circularity'.

What is bad about circularity is only valid within the classical logic FSK.
What these ignorant gnats do not realize is 'circularity' is inherent in all humans to facilitate survival.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 11:23 am Henry presented a case in which the requirement for reciprocity in morality is explained by the fact that his theory doesn't work without reciprocity in morality, resulting in a circular argument that uses the eventual output to create its oringinal input.

If you need help understanding what is logically problematic there, then the decade or more of your of your life spent posing as a philiosopher was a complete waste of oxygen.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 5:59 am In any case, FDP did not qualify a context but merely state,
'circularity is bad'

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 11:48 am That's an outright lie. You quote me out of context and then accuse me of providing no context.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 7:28 am Good point from Skepdick so it would be interesting if FDP/VA could present specific examples of what is being judged as circular. Is it circular (an unrestricted recursive argument), a line that can 'prove' anything is true or are VA's arguments actually just recursive in the useful positive or neutral sense. So, to the things themselves! Bring forth a concrete example of an argument VA used and which FSP categorizes as circular, so we judge 1) if FDP's categorization is correct 2) if they agree that it is, then VA can explain why his examples of circularity from non-argument contexts make his reasoning fine despite being circular, or 3) if FDP's categorization is controversial we can look at that.

The trick with saavy circular reasoning is to hide it in a lot of tangents and distraction.

Let's get ready for some sifting.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 12:07 pm Or he can go the Skepdick/VA route of denying the basic foundations of reason in order to support what was supposed to be an argument within the structures of reason if that seems like a smart move. There's always plenty of spare seats in the clown car.