Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:26 pm
You don't seem to be using the "Socratic Method" at all. Needless to say, I don't understand the vast majority of what you just said, probably because it just doesn't make sense. I don't know what "reflects" means in the context of your example, but just saying something "reflects truth", doesn't mean that something actually "reflects truth". Your example also still misses the point about circular reasoning only being fallacious in the case of an argument. You more or less, just regurgitate known facts that can be deduced simply from within the example itself, I.e "Bible reflects truth, therefore the bible reflects truth". That's really just the Law of identity being applied, and no new data is actually found.
The point is you can never use circular reasoning to prove anything.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:14 pm****For the record, the bible does not claim it is true in the "infallible" method most protestants attribute to it.
It literally doesn't matter. Replace 'bible' with literally anything you want, because I was just using it as a random example to show how the principle can never hold true.
How can anything be proved except through definition? What is proof but definition?
In this respect, the nature of circular reasoning as "propogative" in nature is one propogative of definition.
(as argued in: "the bible says it is true therefore it is true. The bible says X therefore X is true. Source Y say x is false; therefore the bible and Source Y disagree.")
Circular reasoning is a higher degree of "definition" than "linear reasoning" and "in these respects" it constitutes "proof" as a degree of proof. It is in the ability for the circular argument to both reflect upon itself and further reflect other arguments that it maintains this definition as a form of unification between axioms.
The bible point, had nothing to do with "religion" but rather that is a false example that does not reflect reality. Reflection gives definition to structure (as other sources following the same logic argue that it does not say that, while still following a similiar argument of "I say it is true therefore it is true) In this respect circular reasoning reflects other forms of circular reasoning to proof further circular reasoning.
Actually both of us are following it, and if I am not then neither are you, considering your form is similiar to mine.
"Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions."
https://www.bing.com/search?q=socratic+ ... 789DF7D73D
One circular argument reflects another circular argument and in turn another circular argument is formed. Strict linearism is impossible considering it requires axioms, in both beginning and ending, that must be circular. (Agree or disagree?)
Reflect:
(of a surface or body) throw back (heat, light, or sound) without absorbing it:
"when the sun's rays hit the earth a lot of the heat is reflected back into space" · [more]
synonyms: send back · throw back · cast back
(of a mirror or shiny surface) show an image of:
"he could see himself reflected in Keith's mirrored glasses"
synonyms: send back · throw back · cast back
embody or represent (something) in a faithful or appropriate way
https://www.bing.com/search?q=reflect+d ... 2F3C5793BA
Axioms, as all propositions are axioms, reflect other axioms through approximating eachother. This act of approximation in turn forms a further axiom. A reflects B which in turn reflects as (or is congruent in structure to) C. In this respect A B and C reflect eachother as they are approximates of eachother and in this respect are interchangeable (circulate) through proximity.
That applies to the bible example where the circular proposition, considering it is composed of reflecting axioms (bible, truth, says, is...etc. are all "axioms" forming further axioms), must reflect current approximate axioms. In this respect all circular propositions are:
1) True in themselves as axioms.
2) Untrue as they are approximates of other axioms not observed.
3) Both true and false at the same time in different respects depending on what they reflect.
Arguments are definition reflecting definition, like what we are doing right now. You present an Argument. I present an argument. The arguments reflect and in doing so reflect another argument.