The process actually falls under a logical fallacy
called circular reasoning, where A is true because of B, yet B is true because of A.
That's
called circular reasoning.
Using it to prove anything within it is
called circular reasoning and falls flat.
Unfortunately, most atheist would ignore the large themes in the book and focus on what
they call circular reasoning as a reason to discard one of our greatest treatises.
You might
call that circular reasoning but the relationship stood up across the whole period.
Not exact matches
It's
called «
circular reasoning».
Mike Jason would complain that the 44 % was
circular reasoning, but I would
call it parameter fitting.
And since the «climate science» field is such a festering sewer of corruption, groupthink,
circular reasoning and confirmation bias, I have exactly ZERO confidence that the «adjustments» are anything more than the «adjusters» seeking to make the so -
called «data» match their pre-conceived conclusions (whether consciously or unconsciously).
From «adjustment» of data, control of research opportunities and publication venues,
circular reasoning to refusal to even discuss the critical features of numerous photographs that
call common theoretical assumptions into question.
(c) the adjudicator used
circular reasoning by rejecting the respondent's evidence with respect to her
call to her legal colleague based on the adjudicator's finding that the respondent had refused to provide a breath sample as described by the officer (para. 39); and