In my head there seems to be two ways to think. Linear sets a course that does not entertain suggestions without judicial evidence and leads to a new conclusion.
Circular sets a course that can lead back to the original thought without a conclusion or a non-judicial conclusion.
For instance on a graph if random points do not average a intersection of a straight line can only develope a circular line.
This thought is strictly out of my head and has no educational origin because I haven't read or study philosophy. But I am a deep thinker and get quite immersed in my thoughts.
So is this a fair assumption , be it elementry or intermediate?

I would suggest the existence of more shapes of thought than that. For example curvaceous thinking, which could set a course where suggestions are frequently taken in without judicial evidence, and a new conclusion is reached. This mindset seems to be the foundation of those who belligerently accept new information without checking on it's validity first. These are the sorts of people who create conspiracy theories, practice new age medicine, and defend blind faith.

I'm not really educated in philosophy either, but I do like a good think now and then, so I can't really judge your ideas.

BTW, I assume when you say "circular thinking" you don't, in fact, mean circular reasoning, as in the logical fallacy?

(January 13, 2013 at 5:49 pm)killybob Wrote: I would suggest the existence of more shapes of thought than that. For example curvaceous thinking, which could set a course where suggestions are frequently taken in without judicial evidence, and a new conclusion is reached. This mindset seems to be the foundation of those who belligerently accept new information without checking on it's validity first. These are the sorts of people who create conspiracy theories, practice new age medicine, and defend blind faith.

I'm not really educated in philosophy either, but I do like a good think now and then, so I can't really judge your ideas.

BTW, I assume when you say "circular thinking" you don't, in fact, mean circular reasoning, as in the logical fallacy?

I looked up circular reasoning. And no that isn't what I had implied. I think you did a good job of expanding what I had in mind.
I was thinking also of arguments that avoid what seems to be a next logical assumption because that assumption is not useful to support the assumption that was hoped for. The argument that looks for assumptions that support the agenda and ignores the possibility of evidence that could explain the argument. I find these in political discourse to the point that it is maddening.
I had a discourse with my brothers wife today about her contempt for airline procedure. I tried to be rational and explain that perhaps there is more to it than what seemed like a lack of consideration for the passenger. I said I understand that some airlines have displayed a percieved lack of consideration but that should not be construed to all other perceptions. Her argument was her plane was not allowed to land timely enough because of lighting yet her connecting flight was allowed to take off thus making her miss her connection and having to wait for another flight. Her assumption was if a plane can't land because of lighting then it can't takeoff. Her agenda was to prove that airlines are randomly inconsiderate. I said perhaps that is true but this case does not support that. She just got mad at me for defending the airlines. I said I'm not defending the airline but rather protecting your integrity by denying this argument as insufficient. She got even madder !
I don't know if this was denying the antecedent or denying a womans right to be offended. As it turned out my friend who is a airline attendent said
the plane probably took off because there would be no reason to disrupt the further scheduled passengers of the plane that took off for the sake of her planes
delay. Her plane could not land because the terminal was already backed up due to the lightning. She just needed more data but that might defer her desired outcome.
I find the whole gun control debate just about as shallow. The shooters all exhibit major psychological disorders and yet are reffered to as cowards as if they have character issues. Its like calling a rabid dog a behavioral problem.

Circular thinking is a logical fallacy.

"Whatever is less dense than water will float, because whatever is less dense than water will float" sounds stupid, but "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects won't sink in water" might pass.

"Circular reasoning is often of the form: "a is true because b is true; b is true because a is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

(January 17, 2013 at 9:03 am)mr.atheist Wrote: Circular thinking is a logical fallacy.

"Whatever is less dense than water will float, because whatever is less dense than water will float" sounds stupid, but "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects won't sink in water" might pass.

"Circular reasoning is often of the form: "a is true because b is true; b is true because a is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Did you even bother to read any other posts?
I already asked the OP whether that was what he meant, and he said no. Besides, if you read how he defines "circular thinking", it is somewhat different to circular reasoning. Besides, the logical fallacy has never been called "circular thinking" by anyone, unless by mistake.

(January 17, 2013 at 10:54 am)killybob Wrote:

(January 17, 2013 at 9:03 am)mr.atheist Wrote: Circular thinking is a logical fallacy.

"Whatever is less dense than water will float, because whatever is less dense than water will float" sounds stupid, but "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects won't sink in water" might pass.

"Circular reasoning is often of the form: "a is true because b is true; b is true because a is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Did you even bother to read any other posts?
I already asked the OP whether that was what he meant, and he said no. Besides, if you read how he defines "circular thinking", it is somewhat different to circular reasoning. Besides, the logical fallacy has never been called "circular thinking" by anyone, unless by mistake.

I did read the posts actually.
I would say it is incorrect to call circular reasoning,circular thinking.But yet the OP calls it circular thinking which is the wrong definition.

mr.athiest, He is NOT talking about the logical fallacy, he is talking about a different concept, which he just happens to have given a very similar name.