image_pdfimage_print

Circular Reasoning: Example #2

I have encountered criticisms something like this: “If pterosaurs were still living, we would have seen them before now.” Part of the problem with that reasoning is that the critic seems to assume that he personally would have encountered news of living pterosaurs earlier in his life, had there been any truth to it. (If he had read about eyewitness accounts throughout his life, he would not object to it now.) How subjective! It is hardly a scientific objection.

And if the critic meant that there should be older reports to go with recent reports, well . . . pay attention, please. Some of the recent reports are of sightings decades ago; other reports are examinations of apparent sightings centuries ago, with labels that include “dragon.” Accounts of living creatures with features that suggest various species of pterosaurs–those accounts flow through history, up to the first decade of the 21st Century.

Beware of potential circular reasoning in this objection to the possibility of living pterosaurs: “Nobody can see a living pterosaur because they are extinct; pterosaurs are extinct because nobody can see one.”

Circular Reasoning, Example #1

From page 83 of Live Pterosaurs in America:

“One critic . . . said, ‘. . . if pterosaurs [were] still around, they would be extremely obvious.'”

This criticism deserves a brief answer here (my book goes into detail regarding circular reasoning). Professional wildlife photographers sometimes look for the rare White Rhinoceros in Africa; in an area where there are few trees to hide behind, this rhinoceros can still be elusive. Why, then, must a rare nocturnal flying creature be “extremely obvious” to those who are not looking for them?

Has the critic thought carefully? It seems unlikely, for what does it mean for a creature to be “extremely obvious?” It means that the creature will be seen, at least by somebody. And what do we call somebody who sees something? An “eyewitness,” of course. The point? The critic was trying to dismiss eyewitness testimonies. So how does that differ from proclaiming, “Nobody could have seen them because they do not exist; they do not exist because nobody has seen them.” Although not explicitly stated by this critic, it seems to be the “reasoning” involved: circular reasoning.