It's not circular reasoning as the term is commonly used. Circular reasoning refers to a fallacy whereby an argument refers to itself for its own support (as opposed to referring to evidence external to it). "X is true because Y says so and Y is true because X says so" is an example of the fallacy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is science based on circular reasoning?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Donald Hoffman thinks that everything is like a icon on a PC screen and that we see from that icon is reality, but that that reality is independent and not public- much like a rainbow. I agree. That means when you sleep at night, for you, nothing exists. Scary eh!
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I'm not sure if I understand that. I would say everything is subject as we know it all within our own mind. You seemed to be saying the opposite.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
You don't think that he has to be explained then? You don't think complex things need explanation?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Does science support it? I don't think so.Please quote from science in this connection.
Everything that a human seeks knowledge on is an act of religion, yes.
And religion supports seeking all types of knowledge for life, be it relative to physical and material fields related to science or seeking knowledge in ethical, moral and spiritual realms not related to science:
[20:115] Exalted then is Allah, the True King! And be not impatient for the Qur’an ere its revelation is completed unto thee, but only say, ‘O my Lord, increase me in knowledge.’
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=20&verse=114
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
A good point.Donald Hoffman thinks that everything is like a icon on a PC screen and that we see from that icon is reality, but that that reality is independent and not public- much like a rainbow. I agree. That means when you sleep at night, for you, nothing exists. Scary eh!
Regards
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Disagreed.
There is a difference between knowing and thinking you know.
That difference is aptly named "evidence".
Shad
Veteran Member
Think of it with an idea we both know about. Lets use gravity for an example. An axiom for gravity will be that our models for gravity based on the limited observations we have are consistent with gravity throughout the universe even the parts we never explored or observed. If Earth and solar system were moved to some undiscovered galaxy into a similar safe position Earth is now, the axiom would follow that gravity on Earth would remain the same rather than increasing or decreasing. Science is heavily based on induction so these axioms are created via induction and observations which are limited. For gravity models we take our axioms then observe if this model is consistent with new observations which confirm the axiom. This shifts the axiom to another undiscovered area until observations verify it again, /repeat. Circular reasoning is simply this; X proves Y, Y proves X. Each references the other based on the prior assumption both are true as part of the argument without establishing the conclusion as true.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I think the problem people have with your statement is the choice of phrase. Circular reasoning is a term that refers to something that wrongly refers to itself for its own explanation. Science doesn't do that (well, at least not exactly). It is a circular system for the information flow, but that's not the same as "Circular Reasoning". It's a feedback reasoning, like a spiral. The circle you see is the system, the flow of information, how old information feeds into new. That's a feedback. And it eventually really look like a spring or spiral. The diagram only shows the "pump" of the reasoning. Circular reasoning doesn't spiral up to more advanced learning or understanding. Circular Reasoning means something that stays on the same level of understanding and never expands, but only explains itself by referring to itself. Like saying "Language is words. Words is language." That's tautological, or circular. It's tied into itself and can't expand in understanding.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
If scientists based their conclusions off what they did not observe sure, it would be... Maybe it is based off circular reasoning.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Science is not based on circular reasoning, at least to the best of my understanding. But, can you explain why you think it is based on circular reasoning?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You forgot to provide an argument. This is merely an unsupported claim. Can you provide your reasoning for believing that "science is based on circular reasoning"?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Everything that a human seeks knowledge (defined below) of is an act of science (defined below). This is true because science is a very general concept. It uses experience to gain understanding of reality. Religion, on the other hand, relies on believed authority (e.g., the bible, the quran, etc.), and disregards evidence that contradicts said authority.
knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/
noun
- facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
What is science?
Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.
Awkward Fingers
Omphaloskeptic
Oh no You really, really do.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Everything in our universe is circular or tends to be circular; the orbits of the planets are also circular, science discovered that Earth is round/circular; so really it is not bad if science also uses circular reasoning. I don't think it is flat wrong either.
Regards
McBell
Unbound
No, you revel in them.
Your require them.
Without them your whole belief system falls to ashes.
So then you are not making reference to the circular reasoning fallacy when you say that science is circular, right?
cambridge79
Active Member
if science is based on circular reasoning than how do you explain it can produce predictions?
( this will probably fly right over your head )
( this will probably fly right over your head )
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
You mean science can make predictions if it is flat in reasoning and not if it is circular in reasoning?
Regards
Shad
Veteran Member
Irrelevant tripe. Orbits have nothing to do with logical errors. All you have done is produce a red herring as a defense, another error in logic