Q&A: Circularity
Circularity
Question
Hi
You wrote in several places about the circularity that is necessary for any logical move. But I don’t remember whether you distinguished between a case where the circularity grounds the move and a case where it weakens it.
I’ll give an example, and I’d be glad to hear your opinion.
Positive circularity (grounding): I assume that there is no dragon under the table, and that is my basic assumption. Then I can either put my assumption to an empirical test or to a logical test (while recognizing the limits of inductive inference). In both cases, I have allowed myself in advance to break the circular move. Therefore, even if in practice I find empirical or logical support for my basic assumption, it is still “good” circularity.
Negative circularity (weakening): I assume that there is no dragon under the table, but refuse to examine my assumption empirically or logically.
Your view?
Answer
I don’t understand what connection either of these has to circularity. The first is an ordinary attempt to subject something to a falsification test, as is customary in science. The second is not circularity but closed-mindedness.
The circularity I’m talking about is begging the question in a logical argument. It has nothing to do with empirical refutations.