Circularity
Hi
You have written in several places about the circularity necessary for any logical move. But I don't remember if you distinguished between a situation in which circularity establishes the move versus a situation in which it weakens it.
I will give an example and I would love to hear your opinion.
Positive (grounding) circularity: I assume that there is no dragon under the table and this is my basic premise, and then I can either subject my hypothesis to an empirical test or a logical test (recognizing the limitations of inductive reasoning). In both cases, I have allowed myself in advance to break the circular process. Therefore, even if in practice I find empirical or logical support for my basic premise, it is still a "good" circularity.
Negative circularity (weakening): I assume there is no dragon under the table but refuse to empirically or logically test my hypothesis.
What do you think?
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don't understand what the connection between these two is to circularity. The first is the usual stance on the refutation test, as is customary in science. The second is not circularity but mental lock-in.
The circularity I'm talking about is the assumption sought in a logical argument. It has nothing to do with empirical refutations.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer