Logical fallacies are common in
present day arguments, particularly circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is an argument that
relies on itself as evidence: A leads to B, which leads to C, and C, is true
because of A. This can be seen today in many arenas such as politics and
financial markets. For example, people may say a financial policy was good
because the market reacted strongly to it. This explanation simply states this
policy was good because the policy outcome was good. Another example is “Only an untrustworthy person would run
for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this.” This roundabout reasoning seems obvious
in some cases but is often harder to spot in real life scenarios. I believe
that this type of logic may have been implemented when considering the Ptolemy
geocentric model as the accepted model of the solar system.
The most central point (literally)
of any geocentric model is that the Earth is the center of the solar system and
everything else revolves around it.
When the geocentric model did not match with what was observable fact,
astronomers worked to find a solution that explained the planetary
motions. It seems to me that the
great minds at the time looked and thought, the earth is the center of the universe,
here is a complicated diagram of paths of the planets that mostly match up with
what is seen in the sky, and it is right because the earth is the center of the
universe. It is possible that because
of this circular reasoning the geocentric model was accepted for hundreds of
years even though early heliocentric models were presented at the same time.
Sources:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find logical fallacies interesting, and what is even more interesting is our compulsion to categorize them, but this sentence: "the earth is the center ... because the earth is the center of the universe" does not seem like the logical fallacy that is circular reasoning, in my opinion. Astronomers did not argue that the Earth is the center of the universe because they were able to create a diagram of the paths of the planets which mostly matched what they observed in the sky, rather they argued that the Earth must be the center of the universe because having the Earth at the center agreed with what they observed in the sky. Perhaps they then argued that what they observed in the sky must be true because Earth is at the center (this would be circular reasoning). Not all faulty reasoning is faulty because it uses logical fallacies. In this case, the astronomers' reasoning was faulty simply due to lack of complete knowledge and enough evidence about the stars and planets they were observing. http://www.universetoday.com/32607/geocentric-model/
ReplyDeleteI will have to respectfully disagree with your example about circular reasoning in the geocentric models of the past. Though the ones proposing the model did conjure up rather convoluted systems and reasons (circles within circles) to support a geocentric model, this does not point to circular reasoning. They did not back up their mathematics and reasons by simply stating Earth it the center. It instead is more of an "ad hoc" fallacy where one makes an addition to their argument to specifically counter a contradiction in their original argument. For example, If I claim that the world is flat, and an explorer who claims to have circumnavigated the world shows up, I could instead try to say that portals exist on the edges of the flat earth that transports one to the other side instead of abandoning my claim.
ReplyDelete