Saerules Wrote:I (of course) accept that I am me. But I do not accept answering a question as to why this is so with repeating the statement that it I am so... that is what I am criticizing here, noting it is identical to any other form of 'circular reasoning'.
How do you prove that A = A? Or that bachelors are unmarried men? With a tautology, the only "argumentation" is re-assertion. It's not a bad argument in these cases. It's only a bad argument when the proposition is not a tautology. I'm sure you can understand that "A = A" is a tautology and that "I am a man" is not (although it is indeed true). Because of this, it is okay to say that "A is A because A is A" but not okay to say that "I am a man because I am a man". Similarly, the proposition "I am me" is of the first kind and the proposition "the Bible is true because the Bible is true" is of the second.
http://www.mcgath.com/weirdthings.html Wrote:Also, he equates tautology with circular reasoning. But these are different; circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology equates a thing to itself. Tautologies are not fallacious, but rather are trivially true (though a disguised tautology can be used in equivocation).
"I am me because I am me" is a tautology and not fallacious. "The Bible is true because the Bible is true" uses circular reasoning and so is fallacious.
