Talk:循環論證
circular reasoning Vs Begging the question[編輯]
英文維基將循環論證（circular reasoning）跳咗去竊取論點（begging the question）,但其實應該係兩樣嘢嚟架喎, 唔知點解佢哋會放埋一齊- Hardys 2007年7月22號 (日) 15:41 (UTC)
circular reasoning example by Richard Whatley:
畀每個人言論自由對國家、社會都有益。所以每個人都應該有自由講佢嘅感受。
"begging the question" (petitio principii) = the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises = 想拗嘅嘢（結論）已經喺個論點假定咗先。
circular reasoning = begging the question
--WikiCantona 2007年7月22號 (日) 16:23 (UTC)
- 不過其實有分別，Begging the question 係就咁假定咗個前提，而circular reasoning係直情自己特登整多樣嘢出嚟作為證據，好多講邏輯嘅書都將兩樣嘢分開，我諗我得閒去要搵吓書引返根據先得 - Hardys 2007年7月22號 (日) 16:33 (UTC)
- 咁講唔妥。兩樣嘢嘅運作係一樣：「前題」包咗個「結論」；至於個「前題」點嚟同佢個 true value 唔係個運作要考濾嘅。--WikiCantona 2007年7月22號 (日) 18:40 (UTC)
- 我都睇唔明有乜分別。可能 begging the question 係cricular reasoning嘅特例。如果唔係，唔該舉個circular reasoning 但唔係 begging the question 嘅例同埋相反嘅例。* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十三號（星期一）格林尼治 05時34分09秒。
- 「畀每個人言論自由對國家、社會都有益。所以每個人都應該有自由講佢嘅感受。」<--- 點解係circular reasoning? * -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十三號（星期一）格林尼治 05時34分09秒。
- This example was 200 years old, the people back then thought everyone should do what is good for their country. "To do good for one's country" was implicitly assumed, no question asked back then. Put different, 每個人都應該有自由講佢嘅感受，點解？自由講佢嘅感受 = 言論自由 -> 對國家、社會都有益 = 每個人都應該有。Circular reasoning is like you restate what you have said, the conclusion is in the premises you stated. 同呢個唔同：所有動物都識郁，XYZ 係動物 → XYZ 識郁，Here the conclusion is given what is unknown before, unlike circular reasoning: the conclusion is stated before hand.--WikiCantona 2007年7月23號 (一) 06:39 (UTC)
- 我知循環論證係乜，但你個例就前前後後 睇到我一頭霧水。你可唔可以畫清楚個implication 圈呀？I.e. please specify the ABCDE's in A=>B=>C=>D=>E=>A .* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十三號（星期一）格林尼治 08時00分46秒。
- This example was 200 years old, the people back then thought everyone should do what is good for their country. "To do good for one's country" was implicitly assumed, no question asked back then. Put different, 每個人都應該有自由講佢嘅感受，點解？自由講佢嘅感受 = 言論自由 -> 對國家、社會都有益 = 每個人都應該有。Circular reasoning is like you restate what you have said, the conclusion is in the premises you stated. 同呢個唔同：所有動物都識郁，XYZ 係動物 → XYZ 識郁，Here the conclusion is given what is unknown before, unlike circular reasoning: the conclusion is stated before hand.--WikiCantona 2007年7月23號 (一) 06:39 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are talking about. The unproved assumption is that "one must do what is good for the country", whereas the conclusion is "there must be freedom of speech". There is no "想拗嘅嘢（結論）已經喺個論點假定咗先。"* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十四號（星期二）格林尼治 13時07分34秒。
- "To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State; for it is highly conducive to the interests of the Community, that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments."
- 你譯咗，睇吓。--WikiCantona 2007年7月24號 (二) 13:47 (UTC)
- I don't think you got it right. In the English original, we essentially have one statement stated twice, only that in the second instance the term "state" is substituted by "community". Thus the cycle is A=>A, not the complicated chain, which however still forms not a cycle, you outlined in your <!---->. * -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十四號（星期二）格林尼治 21時45分26秒。
- 咁譯會唔會好啲呢？『畀每個人言論自由對國家都有益，為社群好所以每個人都應該有講佢嘅感受嘅自由。』
- Please look back what I said:
- 「前題」包咗個「結論」。言論自由 implies 講佢嘅感受嘅自由，國家 implies 社群。
- Circular reasoning is like you restate what you have said, the conclusion is in the premises you stated.
- Secondly," your "ABCED is A=>B=>C=>D=>E=>A" was what you said, I never said it is a cycle or chain, I said "circular reasoning", Please don't take the terms so literally. Put it badly, you may just try to 偷換概念。:-) --WikiCantona 2007年7月25號 (三) 01:16 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I misread what you write. However, the structure of your argument
is as follows: 1=3, 2 . That is to say, 2 is independent of the rest. 1 and 3 are the same statement, only stated in different words.* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十五號（星期三）格林尼治 01時23分53秒。1: 畀每個人言論自由對國家都有益(unstated) premise 2. 每個人都應該做對國家、社會都有益嘅嘢→ 3. 為社會所以每個人都應該有講佢嘅感受嘅自由。
- Circular reasoning is a=>b=>c=>d=>a.* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十五號（星期三）格林尼治 01時25分33秒。
- Also you got the implication backwards; the first sentence BEFORE the for is the conclusion; the second sentence, AFTER the for, is the argument : "To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State; for it is highly conducive to the interests of the Community, that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments." * -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十五號（星期三）格林尼治 01時31分02秒。
- 唔明，不如你譯個好啲嘅 version? --WikiCantona 2007年7月25號 (三) 01:43 (UTC)
- 直譯先，大家諗諗：
上面嘅推理直頭係 A=>A，同一句嘢講兩次。* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十五號（星期三）格林尼治 04時45分01秒。"To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State; for it is highly conducive to the interests of the Community, that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments."
---> 畀每一個人無限嘅言論自由，一定整體上對國家有益；因為 每個人享有完全無限制嘅表達觀感(? sentiments)嘅自由，於社會(community)高度有利(conducive to the interest)。
- 直譯先，大家諗諗：
- I am sorry that I misread what you write. However, the structure of your argument
- I don't think you got it right. In the English original, we essentially have one statement stated twice, only that in the second instance the term "state" is substituted by "community". Thus the cycle is A=>A, not the complicated chain, which however still forms not a cycle, you outlined in your <!---->. * -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十四號（星期二）格林尼治 21時45分26秒。
- Again, I cannot see the cycle! Please spell it out!
* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月二十四號（星期二）格林尼治 12時54分10秒。舉個例：「我哋一定要支持政府施政，確保社會安定」，但係政府施政未必實可以令社會安定，喺預先假定咗政府嘅決策一定唔會錯，然後叫人去支持政府，呢種就叫做竊取論點。