The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 10 hours agoThe science is dividedlemmy.worldimagemessage-square37fedilinkarrow-up1517arrow-down14
arrow-up1513arrow-down1imageThe science is dividedlemmy.worldThe Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 10 hours agomessage-square37fedilink
minus-squareThatGuy46475@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 hours agoIt’s not circular reasoning, it’s a step of mathematical induction. First you show that something is true for a set of 1, then you show that if it’s true for a set of n it is also true for a set of n+1.
minus-squaresp3ctr4l@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·3 hours agoAs with Kogasa, you’re right that this is not circular reasoning, it is induction. I judged it a bit too quickly. However, it isn’t a valid proof of induction. I tried to work through exactly where and how it fails in another comment. So… it is still fallacious reasoning of some kind, but yes, not the circular reasoning fallacy.
It’s not circular reasoning, it’s a step of mathematical induction. First you show that something is true for a set of 1, then you show that if it’s true for a set of n it is also true for a set of n+1.
As with Kogasa, you’re right that this is not circular reasoning, it is induction.
I judged it a bit too quickly.
However, it isn’t a valid proof of induction.
I tried to work through exactly where and how it fails in another comment.
So… it is still fallacious reasoning of some kind, but yes, not the circular reasoning fallacy.