Regarding the “assuming the desired” fallacy, regarding the discussion you had with Aviv Franco.

Thank you very much for the answer!!!
What you describe is not called ‘assuming the desired’, and of course it is a semantic matter, logic requires us to deal with semantics, if we are not careful in our definitions we may commit the fallacy of ‘confusing language’.
Although in general I really agree with the idea you tried to convey (now that I understand what you said), just not with the way you say it.

The term “assuming the desired” has a certain definition in the context of logic, and you are simply using it to talk about something that is not “assuming the desired” according to the definition of the term in this context.
By the way, it is an “informal”fallacy Precisely because on a technical level the argument is completely logically valid, but it fails because you really have to assume the conclusion you are trying to prove in the argument, so in fact the conclusion follows purely because you assumed it.

Personally, I think this can open the door for people to say, “So who if I assume what I want? Every valid argument assumes what I want” when their argument actually uses their own conclusion within the argument.

Regardless, I have a follow-up question to your discussion with Aviv:
How do you prove that the principle of causality is true at the level you talked about? That is, not just empirically.
If you have a place to refer me to reading on the subject, I would be very happy.

You are wrong. Just a random search I did now, see for example here: https://www.kshalim.com/post/petitio-principii-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%A9-%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%99
I know it is surprising to find that every valid argument assumes what is wanted, and therefore people argue. But they are wrong. But I will not argue with you about semantics.

Regarding the principle of causality, I will refer you to David Hume. He was the first to insist that the principle of causality is a priori. And Kant went on to explain that it's synthetic-a priori. Notice that there's no proof that it's true a priori, only that it's a priori. You can argue that it's not true. But you can't argue that it's a posteriori.

The “Assumption of the wanted” fallacy is an informal logical fallacy in which an argument actually uses the conclusion as part of its premises.
As a premise in itself, or as a hidden premise within one of your premises.
If you do not assume the conclusion in its entirety in one of your premises, you are not “assuming the wanted”, by definition.

In the “Assumption of the wanted” entry on Wikipedia, there is an explanation of “Circular argument” Also called “Assumption of the wanted”:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%94_%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%94

“A circular argument (Latin: circulus in probando), also called “Assumption of the wanted”, is an argument that presupposes what it seeks to prove. *The assumption is used to prove itself,* a tactic that in its simplest form is not particularly convincing, but may take on more sophisticated guises.”

Did you read the examples you provided in the link? Because they all commit this fallacy clearly.
I will give you the first argument as an example:
1. “The Bible was written by God” – assumes that God exists, and that He wrote the Bible.
2. “God speaks the truth” – assumes that God exists, and that He speaks the truth.
What you are trying to prove is “God exists”, but you really have to assume that as an assumption, as part of assumption 1, and also as part of assumption 2.
Therefore, in this case, both of your assumptions “assume what is wanted”.

I apologize, it's hard for me not to respond to you on this because you are simply objectively wrong..
By definition, which is definitely a matter of semantics, but a matter of semantics that is easy to check.

Thanks for the reference to David today.

I want to add, why is it even important for me to argue about this?
First of all, a logical argument that commits a logical fallacy (formal or informal), ultimately fails in its attempt to prove its conclusion because of something it commits some move within that is agreed to be improper.
Usually, for very obvious reasons, in the case of the desired premise because the argument is circular.

There is certainly a reason to talk about what is considered a ”fallacy” and what is not.
The simple reason is that if a logical argument commits a logical fallacy, it is improper in terms of its structure, and therefore the argument can be rejected purely because it commits a logically improper move.
Which is a more objective level that can actually be tested, even before we disagree on the premises.
It's not just semantics, proper logic depends heavily on this semantics.

Therefore, to say that ”every logical argument assumes the desired” when it is simply not true at the level of the definition of “the desired assumption” is a very critical error in logic.
This means that entire arguments that fall because of their pure structure may be accepted as valid when they are not valid.
And, an informal logical fallacy is also a failure *in the structure* of an argument, in the logic behind an argument.
Just because an argument that commits an informal logical fallacy is technically “valid” in that the conclusion follows from the premises, does not mean that the structure of the argument is valid.
The desired assumption is a classic example of this type of logical fallacy, which, even if the argument is valid, does not “prove” anything.

You are repeating the same thing again and again wrong. Circularity exists in both cases. There is no flaw in circularity. At most, a circular argument is neither useful nor interesting, but it does not fail. The argument X and therefore X is valid. There is no fundamental flaw in it. It is not fundamentally different from the argument about Socrates. How is it different from the argument ” ‘X and also Y’ therefore X”?
I will put it another way. Look at the argument about Socrates. Instead of presenting the two usual premises, I will present a completely equivalent set of premises. I will start by deciphering “All men are mortal”. This is essentially a shorthand form for saying that so-and-so is an image and Anonymous is mortal and Socrates is mortal and Muhammad is mortal, etc. You see, this is a completely equivalent formulation of the two premises underlying the argument. But you will immediately see that this is the desired assumption even by your definition. You simply assume that Socrates is mortal. This is strictly circular and meets all your requirements. Therefore, the second formulation that is logically equivalent to this is also circular and assumes the desired one.
In short, every valid logical argument, and Socrates's exception, is circular and according to your formulation you have not proven anything in it. But I think we have exhausted it. This is really just semantics.

It is easy to show that the argument with Socrates does not assume what is wanted.
I will repeat what I wrote in the first response:
Premise 1, alone, does not assume what is wanted, because it is possible that Socrates is not a human being, who is not necessarily mortal.
Premise 2, alone, does not assume what is wanted, because it is possible that Socrates is both a human being and not mortal.
Only when premises 1 and 2 are assumed together does the conclusion follow.

It is simply wrong to say that this argument “assumes what is wanted”, because none of its premises assume that Socrates is mortal.
You do not use your conclusion, that ”Socrates is mortal”, at any point in your argument.
You do assume several different premises that together lead to the conclusion, and of course that means that if you assume all the premises together you *also* assume the conclusion.
But it's not a circular argument, because you don't need the conclusion in its entirety, at any stage of the argument.
In other words, you don't need to assume the conclusion as a premise in your argument for the argument to be valid.

This is exactly the difference between “If X then X” – circular.
and “If X and Y then Z” – non-circular, because Z is not a given that you rely on in the argument.

We've really exhausted it, it's a shame you're arguing about something that's really Logic 101…

You could have simply written goto to the previous messages. Einstein already said what he thinks about those who repeat the same thing over and over again and think that in the end it will work for them.
I explained why Socrates meets exactly your definition. I brought the argument x and also y therefore x (and not therefore z as you cited), and you did not address it. The examples you gave, such as God wrote the Bible, are exactly of this type. And Socrates is like that, because there too you decipher the assumptions. When you do this to Socrates, you will get the same thing.
You are simply captive to the confusion that I often encounter in those who encounter the circularity that exists in every valid argument for the first time, and refuse to part with this formal and unimportant distinction. But there is no problem with definitions. Everyone can define it as they wish. That's it.</p>

An argument of the structure “If both X and Y then X”
Of course it assumes what is wanted, that is what I said earlier, in the example *that you gave* and I quoted…
I thought you were confused because that is exactly what I said, sorry for the mistake.

Socrates' argument is not of this structure simply…
It is of the structure “If both X and Y then Z”
I would like you to show me how Socrates' argument is of the structure “If both X and Y then X”, and how I would get the same thing
But I believe you are tired of me already haha
I understand I am stubborn, it is okay if you do not want to answer me anymore, do not feel that I am forcing you to respond to me.

I refuse to part with this formal and well-defined formal distinction, precisely because it is important…
I'm sorry you don't see that.

Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I didn't get to understand the difference between the two arguments you presented in the question.
Regarding the triangle, you wrote that the argument assumes the desired thing. Because saying that something is a triangle necessarily implies that it has three sides, which is based on premise 1. In other words, here too the reason the second premise assumes the desired thing is because of the first premise.
Alternatively, if we examine the argument about Socrates, based on the first premise, the second premise already contains the conclusion. Just as the definition of a triangle is that it has 3 sides (which is actually the first premise), so too can we say that the definition of a human being is that he is mortal.

No, wait.
Assumption 2 assumes what you want because, by definition, a triangle has 3 sides.
That is, to say that X is a triangle is like saying that X is a polygon with 3 sides.

To assume that X is a triangle, by the definition of the term triangle, you have to assume that X has 3 sides.
Otherwise, it wouldn't be a triangle.

So Assumption 2 actually assumes your entire conclusion, and you use it in the argument to prove your conclusion.

You could write the argument like this:
Assumption 1: X is a triangle.
Conclusion: X has 3 sides.
And the argument is perfectly valid, by the definition of the term triangle.

If you define the term 'human' to be 'mortal', then yes, the above argument assumes the desired.

But since the term 'human' is usually defined as 'a species of mammal with certain characteristics', as long as you don't include the term 'human' being 'mortal' in the definition, you don't assume that all humans are mortal by definition.
If the definition of the term 'human' explicitly stated that they are mortal, then you would have the desired assumption here.
Just like the definition of a triangle, which has 3 sides.

Here is another argument:
Proposition 1: For all triangles, the sum of the angles is 180 degrees.
Proposition 2: X is a triangle.
Conclusion: The sum of the angles of X is 180 degrees.
A valid and proper argument, which does not assume the desired result, because Proposition 1 by itself does not assume the sum of the angles of X, since the definition of the term triangle is ‘a polygon with 3 sides’, there is no reference to angles here at all.

Here is a perfectly valid argument:
Proposition 1: All humans are bald.
Proposition 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is bald.

The above argument does not assume the desired result.
Not only because Proposition 1 is simply false, but because the conclusion does not follow from one of the assumptions separately.
In other words, you don't use 'Socrates is bald' as some kind of data in the argument itself that is found within the premises, but you assume 2 different premises whose truth together also requires the conclusion.

Incidentally, it's easy to see that the argument is valid, because if premise 1 were true and premise 2 were also true, the conclusion would necessarily be true.

Gil, thanks for all the examples, I learned a lot about logic from you (I came here through your post on the Atheism forum). I think you should join the atheist line's moderator team.

Gil, I think (not sure for sure) that Mikhi's point was that when you assume “all men are mortal”, you already assume that Socrates is a human being precisely because he is a human being. Therefore, the desired assumption. You simply say “all men are mortal”, that is the assumption and that is the result.
Therefore, every logical argument clearly assumes the desired. Logical arguments are simply a description of reality in a syllogism. And there is nothing wrong with that, as Mikhi said. In the worst case – the arguments simply do not innovate anything.
In every logical argument, the same thing happens: you assume the conclusion as the desired assumption, and there are those who accept this assumption and those who do not. The argument is always about the assumptions. Not about the conclusion. Have you ever thought about why? Precisely for this reason – because the conclusion is already hidden in the assumptions! No wonder they are argued about. Because you assume what is wanted. You simply assume the conclusion *even if you split it into two different premises* – as in the example with Socrates.

Now you may be asking the following question: If all arguments assume what is wanted, why don't we just assume conclusions as we please? For example, “God exists” or “God does not exist”. And that is exactly the point: we literally do this in every logical argument, until we eventually reach a factually correct premise and the argument becomes valid.

In short, in Socrates' argument you make a split in the premises when each premise is anyway true because the second premise is also true, and then the conclusion necessarily follows that we assumed what is wanted. Logical arguments are simply a description of reality based on factual and accepted premises.

When does the desired assumption become problematic and considered a failure? Very simple. When the assumption is unfounded and incorrect. Therefore, the conclusion will not follow from it.
You were arguing here about terminology, nothing more.