Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jerkins
Science book: Mix two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen to make water.
|
Circular reasoning alone is considered to be bad science, and, in general, a poor (flawed) way to explain things, anything, even situations not involving science, like basketball definitions.
Example: How do you know the rock layers are old? Because the fossils in them are old. How do you know the fossils are old? Because the rock that contains them are old. (A common challenge to scientists by those who believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.)
Once anything else is added to the circular reasoning loop, it begins to make more sense.
Add a little knowledge about how rock layers form and how evolution occurs, and determining the age of rocks and fossils makes more sense.
Add a little knowledge (intent and purpose) about what disposal means in the game of basketball (proximity of the ball to the inbounder, time that the ball is available, etc.), and defining what disposal means makes more sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond
There is no circular reasoning to this.
|
My point throughout this entire thread is that the rules (alone, as written) regarding disposal are a good example of circular reasoning. Add anything (intent and purpose) to this circular reasoning loop takes us outside the loop and it no longer remains circular reasoning, and thus, is no longer flawed.