Yahadreas Wrote:I'm sure you can understand the logical difference between "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so" and "bachelors are unmarried men". The former uses circular reasoning; the latter is a tautology. They are not the same types of argument. The claim "I am me" is a tautology, like the second proposition, not circular reasoning, like the first.
I admit, I used to see them as different arguments (circular reasoning and tautology). Now I see them as the same thing written two different ways.
OH! By 'tautology', i've been referring to the logical definition (a statement that is true by necessity of its logical form), not the colloquial lack of style (saying the same thing twice). While the 'type' of argument does change (you are right about that), the intent of the argument is almost always the same, even if unintentional.
Logic is a process that takes statements to be true (if-), and then works things out from point of a particular statement being true. Ie: If all dogs are mountains, and all mountains are blue, then all dogs are blue.
If we fail to precede such statements with 'if', we are stating that a thing is true. Ie: All Dogs are mountains. All mountains are blue. Therefore all dogs are blue.
One can even turn it into a circular set, though this particular one feels choppy saying it like this. Ie: All dogs are mountains. "why?" Because all mountains are blue. "Why are all mountains blue?" All dogs are blue. "Why are all dogs blue?"-repeat-
It is a self-supported circle of logic. Each of the fields, though untrue, support each other when reasoning for them is inquired. No progress is ever made for the person with the belief, little thinking is required for any argument that supports itself. To the person who believes the argument, it must be true, and often not a word will be considered against it.
Take tautologies now... a statement is taken as true (ie: I am me) because a thing is said that must be true. Then when asked why it must be true, the statement is repeated, often written differently. When asked why this time, it returns to the first answer. Observe, if you would, the many ways this can be abused, and why I think so little of such arguments:
"Why is the sky blue?" Because it is. "Why is it?" Because it is not not blue. "Why is it not not blue?" Because it is. "Why is it?" "Because it is not not blue".
Never, in any of that... just as with circular reasoning... do we come to find out any reason being the the thing suggested (in this case, the sky being blue). Why not go to the field of science, and pull human eyesight and how light reflects off of Earth's atmosphere? Why not suggest instead that it is not always blue, as can perhaps be witnessed at other times? Nothing is challenged... nothing is solved... nothing is gained by either party. Now let's compare these both:
All dogs are mountains. "why are all dogs mountains?" Because all mountains are blue. "Why are all mountains blue?" All dogs are blue. "Why are all dogs blue?"-repeat-
"Why is the sky blue?" Because it is. "Why is it?" Because it is not not blue. "Why is it not not blue?" Because it is. "Why is it?" "Because it is not not blue".-repeat-
Now a real example of the two in practice:
The Bible is the word of God. "Why do you think it is the word of God?" Because the Bible tells us so. "But why do you believe what the Bible says?" The Bible is infallible. "Why do you say that?" -repeat-
"Why am I me?" Because you are not not you. "Why am I not not me?" Because you are you. "But why am I me?" Because you are not not you.
^-- these two arguments... they are the same thing, written with a differing number of clauses. One is a circle that just keeps coming around to itself. The other is a circle that hits three things before it gets back to itself.
I therefore argue, that tautology is another word for circular reasoning. 
And further that neither of them are to the gain to anyone understanding the world.
