Talking in Circles

We’ve all been there. We’ve all argued in circles or been argued with in circles. Talking in circles refers to another logical fallacy known as the circular argument, circular reasoning, or begging the question. Essentially it is an argument that in some way is predicated on itself.

This is a fallacy that I’ve been catching more in my reading and listening. It happens at work, school, and all around me. For example, your function is moving out of the training department because it cannot be effective there; however you must still remain active in with department in many ways so you can be effective. This argument presupposes that effectiveness is not possible in the training department but that being heavily involved in the training department is required for effectiveness.

This is common enough argument that it is becoming almost humorous to find. One word of caution, people don’t like to be caught talking in circles. I tend to keep it to myself but use it to make determinations about whether or not that person has made careful or accurate decisions.

I think on of the reasons this and other fallacies happen is because we are moving so quickly that we can’t take time to think clearly before speaking. Ever notice how academics seem to move at a different pace? Slower maybe? Sure, is it because they don’t understand how it is in the real world? Perhaps, but more likely they are taking the time to be conscious and determined in both thought and response.

Businesses regularly report wanting more critical thinking people on the payroll. Critical thinking requires some prowess for logic and logical fallacies. Like all things, the more we practice the faster we will think critically. We need to be patient while the skills are built.

• What circular arguments to do you hear?
• What circular do you use?
• How can you stop using those logical errors and still get to the outcomes you desire?
• Does knowing more about circular reasoning help or hinder you?

In terms of study and research, being able to spot circular arguments is imperative to determining reliability and credibility in the work. I’ve read several articles that make this error and it is awfully easy to just ignore them to take what I need to make my own argument. Good researchers don’t do that though, they engage in reflective thinking and take care to use elements that make sense logically.

Still, I have more fun listening to people and finding the fallacy in the statements. This is particularly fun when you’ve already determined the argument is bunk. Be careful not to anger them though, people who think irrationally often act irrationally too.

Image source: Guille

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!