Circular reasoning

Is basing all conclusions based upon human reasoning a circular argument?

Originally posted by whodey
Is basing all conclusions based upon human reasoning a circular argument?

Just another way of saying mankind is suffering from original sin, repent o brother before it's too late, humans as they exist right now are all flawed and only JC and the boys can fix that.

Same as the 'aliens came down and showed the stupid humans how to build a pyramid' because humans could never have done such a magnificent engineering job 5000 years ago when all they had was ropes and chisels. Maybe hammers. Therefore ALIENS EXIST.

You are asking if humans can know ANYTHING. I think the answer to that is obvious, at least to someone like me who actually enjoys being around actual intelligence.

You clearly are suspicious of intelligence, wanting instead to self lobotomize your brain by only living as the bible says, a very restrictive way to live.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just another way of saying mankind is suffering from original sin, repent o brother before it's too late, humans as they exist right now are all flawed and only JC and the boys can fix that.

Same as the 'aliens came down and showed the stupid humans how to build a pyramid' because humans could never have done such a magnificent engineering job 5000 year ...[text shortened]... to self lobotomize your brain by only living as the bible says, a very restrictive way to live.

Hysteria is amusing, isn't it.

Feel free to respond in a rational manner whereby we can unleash the power of human reason to find the source of all truthiness.

Originally posted by whodey
Is basing all conclusions based upon human reasoning a circular argument?

Obviously, it depends on what's being reasoned, and how that reasoning was formed. Not all instances of human reasoning are worthwhile.

Originally posted by vivify
Obviously, it depends on what's being reasoned, and how that reasoning was formed. Not all instances of human reasoning are worthwhile.

Give an instance where it is worthwhile.

Originally posted by whodey
Give an instance where it is worthwhile.

The same type of bird, such as finches, can have different beak sizes (large, small, medium, etc). Finches native to different environments are different from each other. Therefore, it's possible that finches can change overtime, depending on the environment, and what traits are passed down (such as a large, small or medium-sized beaks).

Reasoning from this: that species can evolve over time through sexual selection.

Originally posted by whodey
Is basing all conclusions based upon human reasoning a circular argument?

irrationalism: a system of belief or action that disregards or contradicts rational principles.

circular reasoning: a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

The problem with the question "Is basing all conclusions based upon human reasoning a circular argument?" is, if it is true. its truth can't be reliably reasoned out without committing the fallacy. So a reductio ad absurdum argument does not work, becuase irrationality is admittedly absurd.

However, if it is false, its falsity can be reasoned out without committing the fallacy.

My own response is, we can't help but base conclusions on human reasoning. That's why we call them conclusions. Besides, we need the eggs.

Originally posted by vivify
The same type of bird, such as finches, can have different beak sizes (large, small, medium, etc). Finches native to different environments are different from each other. Therefore, it's possible that finches can change overtime, depending on the environment, and what traits are passed down (such as a large, small or medium-sized beaks).

Reasoning from this: that species can evolve over time through sexual selection.

Could this reasoning be flawed?

Originally posted by whodey
Could this reasoning be flawed?

Not based on the available evidence.

Originally posted by vivify
Not based on the available evidence.

So you are conceding that this reasoning might be flawed?

Originally posted by whodey
So you are conceding that this reasoning might be flawed?

No. If reasoning is sound, then it isn't flawed. Reasoning is sound if it follows logically from the available evidence.

Originally posted by vivify
No. If reasoning is sound, then it isn't flawed. Reasoning is sound if it follows logically from the available evidence.

So you are saying that your reasoning about the finch cannot be flawed?

It's either one or the other. It can be flawed or it cannot be flawed.

Originally posted by whodey
So you are saying that your reasoning about the finch cannot be flawed?

It's either one or the other. It can be flawed or it cannot be flawed.

Assuming that my argument followed logically from the available evidence, then no, it's not. Even if I've failed somewhere in my reasoning, it's not circular, which is what you were initially asking.

Originally posted by vivify
Assuming that my argument followed logically from the available evidence, then no, it's not. Even if I've failed somewhere in my reasoning, it's not circular, which is what you were initially asking.

So how is one to know if the argument if flawed logically or if the evidence is flaw proof?

Originally posted by whodey
So how is one to know if the argument if flawed logically or if the evidence is flaw proof?

If we're discussing scientific theories, then they can (and are) tested for such flaws through exhaustive peer review.

If we're discussing something philosophical, a scientific approach can be taking towards that as well. Truth tables (or logic tables) are one example.