A circular argument

I have been looking at the following question:

Complex stuff doesn't just arise spontaneously, it can only arise through Intelligent Design. Therefore, if we find evidence of complex stuff, that serves as proof it was Intelligently Designed.

The writer suggested that this might be a circular argument.

In fact it's not.

This is because independent, experience-based, empirically derived observations lead us to understand that intelligence is the only known cause of language-based codes -- to wit, high CSI*. So we have good independent reasons to infer that an intelligence was at work. Using the principle of uniformitarianism, we infer that if we find language-based codes in nature, they come from intelligent design.

CSI = Complex and Specified Information

It was not so much Intelligent Design that caught my eye (although God and Design are discussed in the play Wonder, soon to be showing...well, see details below...) but this idea of 'circularity.

(If you wish to read a full discussion of the question above then please go here...)

According to this site:

"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
(T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)

"Circular argument: A sentence or argument that restates rather than proves. Thus, it goes in a circle: 'President Reagan was a great communicator because he had the knack of talking effectively to the people.' The terms in the beginning of the sentence (great communicator) and the end of the sentence (talking effectively) are interchangeable."
(Stephen Reid, The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, 5th ed., 2000)

Circular arguments are further discussed here...

Maybe I have just got 'circles' on the brain what with the BBC investigating...the BBC etc.

Or it could be because I have been reading a play by Michael Dickinson, entitled 'Circles'.

Here's an extract:

MARY
What else do you do alone?

JESUS
Crap and sleep, I suppose. And die, eventually.


Noisear did 'Born Alone, Die Alone'

That reminds me of the old saying:

We are born naked, wet and hungry. Then things get worse.

This idea of circularity seems similar to that of ‘eternal return’ a concept that sees the universe as recurring in a self-similar form, an infinite number of times across infinite time and space.

This concept is present in Indian philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche used it as a thought experiment to argue for amor fati.

In Michael's play 'Circles'  Mary asks Jesus:

"When the Pharisees asked if I should be stoned you were quiet for a long time before you answered. You were writing something in the sand with your finger. What were you writing?"

Jesus replies that he was drawing. Mary asks him what he was drawing and, when Jesus answers, she asks him WHY he drew that.

Hopefully you'll want to know the answer - so why not come along and see 'Circles' (and a couple of other plays) at:

At The Dogstar, 389 Coldharbour Lane, London, SW9 8LQ.
(Nearest tube: Brixton).

All tickets: £5 (of which 50p goes to The MS Society)
(www.mssociety.org.uk)

7.30pm on Tues 20^th, Wed 21^st and Thurs 22^nd November 2012.

Produced by Almost Random Theatre. 

(www.almostrandomtheatre.co.uk)

Email: art.theatre.uk@gmail.com


Phone: 01865 512428

If you wish to read more about Michael then go and visit his website here...

Apart from writing, Dickinson puts his hand to collage and has had several exhibitions of his work, examples of which can be seen at his website