The first part is a little theoretical. I try keep it as short as possible – but nevertheless the text is quite long.
If you’re interested in mathematics, computer science or rhetoric you should have heard about a logical fallacy named “circular reasoning” or “circulus in probando” (took that straight from Wikipedia)
It is a form of wrong conclusion, where someone tries to “proof” a statement with other statements, that already assume the first to be true – equivalent statements. A⟺B. You could also say, parts of the statement you want to proof are used as prerequisites. Sounds complex if you’re not familiar with math, but is easily understood with (non-math) examples:
The Bible is the Word of God because it’s written in the Bible: “But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” from wikisource
The Bible is the Word of God because it’s written in the Bible that it is the Word of God.
This is a matter of faith. You believe it or you don’t. May be true or false. But it is no proof.
Asbestos is fire-resistant because you can’t inflame it.
This is true. But the second half of the sentence means the same as the first part. So this is not a proof for the first statement.
These examples are easy to uncover as stupid. But there may be many intermediate steps, so one can not spot the problem as fast: A⟹B⟹C⟹A.
======
Okay, Sina, enough with the boring theory! Is this a logic class? What does this have to do with your life anyway? Maybe these circles are annoying, when you try to proof a mathematical theorem and make foolish mistakes. It has nothing to do with everyday life, so stop it!
These preliminary remarks are necessary because I need them for the main part of my blog post. Just kidding.
======
I wanted to introduce this form of logical error, because it can be dangerous if used by people with power! If some people have the privilege to interpret a situation and their word is treated like the Word of God. It almost killed me – no exaggeration. Yes, that’s right. It almost costed my life. Circulus in probando can be used to ruin someones life – if used by a psychiatrist.
“You have to take these drugs!”
“No! I do not want them. They are not good for me. They hurt my brain.”
“You have to take these drugs, because you’re very ill.”
“No. I’m not very ill. The drugs make me feel bad and tired and I can’t think properly.”
“You can’t judge your own situation, because you’re ill.”
“Why do you insist upon me being ill?”
“Your behavior shows this. Now take your medicine.”
“How can you call something that makes me feel so bad medicine?”
“Because it’s going to help you.”
“I don’t feel any better since you gave me more and more drugs, I feel worse!”
“You will feel better – it will help because it’s medicine. It takes time. You can’t judge this, because you’re ill.”
“I want to leave this place. You’re harming me.”
“No. I’m not harming you.”
“Yes you are.”
“No.”
“Yes.”
“No, because I’m a doctor. I’m gonna help you. Doctors help. They do no harm.
“I want to leave now.”
“You can’t leave, because you’re sick and now stop arguing and take your medicine or I’ll have to call some nurses.”
There you have it: Countless times circular reasoning. Recited like a mantra.
1 Taking the drugs.
2 Situation gets worse.
3 Doctors say: “Still not better? We’ll have to increase the dose!”
4 GOTO 1
If was a self-energizing process, once started almost impossible to stop, because one thing was never considered: Errare human est – to err is human. I found this brilliant longer quote on Wiktionary:
Franz Kafka couldn’t have come up with a more disturbing plot. In retrospekt it looks truely kafkaesque.
Homework: Argue sensible against these doctors while you’re constantly intoxicated and only 14 years old – get out of the endless loop. Anything you say can and will be used against you!
If you’re interested in mathematics, computer science or rhetoric you should have heard about a logical fallacy named “circular reasoning” or “circulus in probando” (took that straight from Wikipedia)
It is a form of wrong conclusion, where someone tries to “proof” a statement with other statements, that already assume the first to be true – equivalent statements. A⟺B. You could also say, parts of the statement you want to proof are used as prerequisites. Sounds complex if you’re not familiar with math, but is easily understood with (non-math) examples:
The Bible is the Word of God because it’s written in the Bible: “But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” from wikisource
The Bible is the Word of God because it’s written in the Bible that it is the Word of God.
This is a matter of faith. You believe it or you don’t. May be true or false. But it is no proof.
Asbestos is fire-resistant because you can’t inflame it.
This is true. But the second half of the sentence means the same as the first part. So this is not a proof for the first statement.
These examples are easy to uncover as stupid. But there may be many intermediate steps, so one can not spot the problem as fast: A⟹B⟹C⟹A.
======
Okay, Sina, enough with the boring theory! Is this a logic class? What does this have to do with your life anyway? Maybe these circles are annoying, when you try to proof a mathematical theorem and make foolish mistakes. It has nothing to do with everyday life, so stop it!
These preliminary remarks are necessary because I need them for the main part of my blog post. Just kidding.
======
I wanted to introduce this form of logical error, because it can be dangerous if used by people with power! If some people have the privilege to interpret a situation and their word is treated like the Word of God. It almost killed me – no exaggeration. Yes, that’s right. It almost costed my life. Circulus in probando can be used to ruin someones life – if used by a psychiatrist.
“You have to take these drugs!”
“No! I do not want them. They are not good for me. They hurt my brain.”
“You have to take these drugs, because you’re very ill.”
“No. I’m not very ill. The drugs make me feel bad and tired and I can’t think properly.”
“You can’t judge your own situation, because you’re ill.”
“Why do you insist upon me being ill?”
“Your behavior shows this. Now take your medicine.”
“How can you call something that makes me feel so bad medicine?”
“Because it’s going to help you.”
“I don’t feel any better since you gave me more and more drugs, I feel worse!”
“You will feel better – it will help because it’s medicine. It takes time. You can’t judge this, because you’re ill.”
“I want to leave this place. You’re harming me.”
“No. I’m not harming you.”
“Yes you are.”
“No.”
“Yes.”
“No, because I’m a doctor. I’m gonna help you. Doctors help. They do no harm.
“I want to leave now.”
“You can’t leave, because you’re sick and now stop arguing and take your medicine or I’ll have to call some nurses.”
There you have it: Countless times circular reasoning. Recited like a mantra.
1 Taking the drugs.
2 Situation gets worse.
3 Doctors say: “Still not better? We’ll have to increase the dose!”
4 GOTO 1
If was a self-energizing process, once started almost impossible to stop, because one thing was never considered: Errare human est – to err is human. I found this brilliant longer quote on Wiktionary:
"Errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum."
"To err is human, but to persist in error (out of pride) is diabolical."
Bull’s eye!
"To err is human, but to persist in error (out of pride) is diabolical."
Bull’s eye!
Franz Kafka couldn’t have come up with a more disturbing plot. In retrospekt it looks truely kafkaesque.
Homework: Argue sensible against these doctors while you’re constantly intoxicated and only 14 years old – get out of the endless loop. Anything you say can and will be used against you!
Two teenage boys were talking to each other in the bus.
Boy1: “I got a new smartphone!!” (Android)
Boy2: “Coooool!!”
Boy1: “Yeah. But now I have to type in all my contacts. Tedious.”
Boy2: “Send yourself all contacts with WhatsApp messages.”
Boy1: “I don’t have a second SIM-card.”
I know literally nothing about smartphones. I don’t have one, I don’t need one. But one thing I did know immediately: These boys are dumb. Even a cellphone from the 90s can export contacts to the SIM-card. A full-fledged computer must be able to export any data you store on it – in the worst case to a Google server. So when I got home I typed into the search engine: “Android transfer contacts.” and was overrun by helpful search results.
Boy1: “I got a new smartphone!!” (Android)
Boy2: “Coooool!!”
Boy1: “Yeah. But now I have to type in all my contacts. Tedious.”
Boy2: “Send yourself all contacts with WhatsApp messages.”
Boy1: “I don’t have a second SIM-card.”
I know literally nothing about smartphones. I don’t have one, I don’t need one. But one thing I did know immediately: These boys are dumb. Even a cellphone from the 90s can export contacts to the SIM-card. A full-fledged computer must be able to export any data you store on it – in the worst case to a Google server. So when I got home I typed into the search engine: “Android transfer contacts.” and was overrun by helpful search results.
