Circular Arguments  or `Begging the Question'

 Politicians, financiers, lawyers (and even parents) indulge in `circular argument'
 to justify their statements or actions.

 Example - child asks Mother "Why does the apple fall down from the tree?" and Mum
 says "Because of the `Law of Gravity' dear" which is not the reason for an apple
 falling, only another description of the event using longer words.

 --

 Grimmer example -

 "Suicide or murder?" asks the impartial Investigator

 "Definitely suicide" said the bent local cop / lawyer / politico -
 "The whistle-blower was deranged"

 "Tell me" said Investigator

 "Well he must have been, he top't himself didn't he?

 --

 Many so-called `scientific' descriptions or concepts are based only on circular
 arguments - because our scientists know less than 1% of the reasons for universal
 phenomena.

 Theories +/or principles:-  "Gravity" - "Instinct" - "Inertia - "Momentum" -
 "Conservation of (virtually anything)" - concerning phenomena:-
 energy, momentum, parity* are supposedly explanations of the vital workings of
 our Universe.

 Yet they are mostly `circular arguments' - as seen at
 http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00860.htm

 and on-site at

 www.perceptions.couk.com/blinded.html and
 www.perceptions.couk.com/footnotes2.html and
 www.perceptions.couk.com/physci.html & links and
 www.perceptions.couk.com/subindex.html
 www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/massdefs.txt

 for *parity* see

 www.perceptions.couk.com/greatest.html#wu

---------------------------------------------------------

 To answer a query with a circular argument is to "beg the question"    

---------------------------------------------------------

              FURTHER REFERENCES

  GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE


file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/begged.txt