trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Circular reasoning is always a formal logical fallacy
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 2 against

Circular reasoning is not always a formal logical fallacy; in epistemology and the justification of basic logical rules, rule-circular arguments can be valid and epistemically useful.

Evidence against · 2
The Epistemology of Logic
2020 · cited by 0
Paper [2] demonstrates that rule-circular arguments can successfully yield a priori knowledge of logical validity rather than failing automatically.
See more details
The analysis

The claim states that circular reasoning is 'always' a formal logical fallacy. However, literature in the epistemology of logic (such as papers [2] and [5]) shows that rule-circular arguments can be epistemically productive and do not automatically constitute a fatal fallacy when establishing basic rules of deduction. Therefore, the absolute claim is refuted.

More against · 1
Logical Rationalism
2025 · cited by 0
Paper [5] addresses the problem of avoiding vicious circularity when justifying basic rules of inference, highlighting that not all circular reasoning is fatal to logical justification.
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked31 Jul 2026
judged → REFUTED · 1031 Jul 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt