Today's logical fallacy is Begging the Question - a circular argument where the conclusion is baked right into the premise. It's like saying, "This thing is true because it says it's true," and then acting like the loop proves anything.

It often hides behind flowery language or appeals to tradition, but when you boil it down, it's just a logical treadmill. You're moving, but you're not going anywhere.

Let's start with a classic example:

The teachings in the Book of Syrinx are flawless and unquestionable. How do we know? Because the Book of Syrinx says so, and the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx assure us it is divine truth.

That's it. That's the argument. The claim is used as its own proof. Nothing external, no testable evidence, just a loop of circular reasoning dressed up in robes and incense.

A politician says, "This policy must be right because it's based on traditional American values." But when pressed on what those values are or why they apply to this policy, they just repeat, "Because that's what we've always stood for." There's no reasoning, no data, no real defense - just circular logic. The policy is right because it's tied to the values, and the values are right because they've always been part of the policy. That's not an argument. It's a loop.

In business, I see this kind of thing more than you'd expect. A vendor says, "Our software is the best choice because it's built on industry-leading standards." And when you ask who sets those standards? Surprise - they do. Or they reference some committee or certification body they created themselves. It's like a gold star from your mom taped to your resume. Looks official until you squint.

You see this fallacy all the time in IT departments clinging to old systems. Someone says, "We can't replace our legacy database - it's our standard." But when you ask why it's the standard, the answer boils down to, "Because we've always used it." There's no cost-benefit analysis. No exploration of whether a modern system would be more secure, faster, or easier to maintain. Just tradition dressed up as justification. That's begging the question. The claim assumes its own conclusion without offering any outside reasoning.

If you've ever worked with formulas in Excel, you've probably seen the dreaded circular reference error. That happens when a formula refers back to its own cell - either directly or through a chain of other formulas. It's Excel's way of saying, "You're trying to prove something using itself as the proof." And Excel, at least, is smart enough to throw an error when it catches you doing that. In human reasoning, we don't always get a pop-up warning. But it's the same fallacy: using the conclusion as part of the premise. Circular logic doesn't get you closer to the truth. It just keeps you stuck in a loop.

Star Trek? Let's go with TNG's Justice. You remember the Edo - the cheerful, half-naked people with the creepy floating god-orb? They arrest Wesley for stepping on a flower bed, and when Picard questions the fairness of the punishment, the response is basically, "Our laws are just because they are the law." That's it. Circular logic delivered with a smile and backed by a glowing cloud of possible annihilation. No reasoning, no flexibility - just rule = right because right = rule.

In the cult sci-fi comedy Idiocracy (2006), humanity has become absurdly dumbed-down. There's a scene where government officials are watering crops with Brawndo, a sports drink, because "it's what plants crave" - even though the plants are dying. When questioned, they respond "It's got electrolytes," and when asked why electrolytes help, they say "Because plants crave Brawndo." It's circular reasoning at its finest - the claim proves itself and is treated as gospel.

When people say something is true, or good, or just because "it says so," you've got to step back and ask: says so based on what? If the answer loops right back to the original claim, you're not looking at logic. You're looking at a dog chasing its own tail.

And that's the danger of this fallacy. It's easy. It feels solid. It saves you from having to think too hard or challenge a belief that's been sitting comfortably in your brain for years. But comfort and truth aren't the same thing. Not in science. Not in business. Not in philosophy. And definitely not in a world where people used to think the Earth was flat because, well, everyone said it was flat.

LLAP
RR

P.S. "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan