I posted this question earlier but I still need help with this.
I need to explain how this argument could be constructed as circular,
the argument is
[W]e may observe, that there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men, and the reports of eye-witnesses and spectators. This species of reasoning, perhaps, one may deny to be founded on the relation of cause and effect. I shall not dispute about a word. It will be sufficient to observe, that our assurance in any argument of this kind is derived from no other principle than our observation of the veracity of human testimony, and of the usual conformity of facts to the reports of witnesses. It being a general maxim, that no objects have any discoverable connexion together, and that all the inferences, which we can draw from one to another, are founded merely on our experience of their constant and regular conjunction; it is evident, that we ought not to make an exception to this maxim in favor of human testimony, whose connexion with any event seems, in itself, as little necessary as any other.
What I have is that the arguer is saying that testimony is important and useful, but some may deny that testimony is based on facts, but it's enough to note that our assurance in an argument is taken from the truthfulness of human testimony and the usual conformance of facts to the reports of witnesses, but a general truth is that no objects have any connection together and that all conclusions reached by evidence are founded only on our experiences of their occurrences and We shouldn’t make an exception that no objects have any connection together and that all conclusions reached by evidence are founded only on our experiences of their occurrences in favour of human testimony, whose connection with any event seen little necessary.
I didn't see your response earlier until just now (I went to bed). I've responded below to our earlier "chat". I don't know if I'm being helpful or not. I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm "best" at critical thinking. I can poke holes in someone else's thinking, as someone can poke holes in my reasoning sometimes. One thing is certain, your transcription here is different than the earlier one, which might change the meaning. Go back to what we were first talking about.
I wish my old colleague Jim Herrick were here to join this discussion. He would be better at this than I am. Unfortunately, he's not a tutor on Jiskha. :(
To understand how this argument could be considered circular, let's break it down step by step:
1. The arguer begins by asserting that reasoning based on testimony is common, useful, and necessary in human life.
2. They acknowledge that this type of reasoning may be denied as being grounded in the relation of cause and effect, but they do not challenge this objection.
3. Instead, the arguer states that our assurance in arguments based on testimony comes solely from our observation of the veracity of human testimony and the usual conformity of facts to eyewitness reports.
4. They then introduce the general maxim that all inferences and connections between objects are derived from our experience of their constant and regular conjunction.
5. Finally, the arguer concludes that we should not make an exception in favor of human testimony because, in itself, it is as little necessary as any other connection.
The circularity in this argument arises because it seems to assume the trustworthiness of human testimony as a given, without providing any independent justification. The arguer relies on the veracity of human testimony to support their belief in the connection between testimony and facts, but then they use this connection between testimony and facts to support the trustworthiness of human testimony.
In other words, the argument seems to assume the truth of its own conclusion. It asserts that our assurance in arguments based on testimony is derived from the veracity of human testimony, but it does not provide any objective evidence or reasoning to establish the initial trustworthiness of human testimony. Instead, it simply asserts that this trustworthiness is derived from our observation and experience without further substantiation.
Therefore, the circularity lies in the argument relying on the very thing it seeks to prove, making it circular in nature.