LOGICAL FALLACIES
Circular Reasoning:
Definition and Examples
Circular reasoning, or circular argument, is a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to prove something using circular logic; they use the conclusion as evidence to show that the reasons for the very conclusion are true.
It’s closely related to the fallacy of begging the question, and the two work almost identically in practice. However, the latter is seen as a more specific type of the former.
Circular Reasoning:
Definition
Circular reasoning occurs when someone makes an argument in which both the premises and the conclusion have to rely on the truthfulness of the other.
As such, the logic of it goes:
A is true because B is true;
B is true because A is true.
A): The Biopsy was negative
B): Operation was not needed
#Stateargument
The Biopsy was negative hence the operation was not needed.
The operation was not needed because the biopsy was negative.
But
The science was reviewed at the time of the scientific enquiry. Indicating a negative biopsy did not rule out the pathology and the indication for the surgery was in line with clinical standards at the time of the enquiry. #HPCSA #ScienceWasReasonableAtTheTime
This was proven and confirmed by the first state witness”
https://www.ewn.co.za/beales-treatment-of-boy-3-who-later-died-was-in-line-with-standard-practice-court-told/
Legal tricks to drive home a circular argument:
Call many witnesses to start the circle daily?
State lines up dozens of witnesses to show how Beale's actions 'led to death' of three children
https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/state-lines-up-dozens-of-witnesses-to-show-how-beales-actions-led-to-death-of-three-children-20240130
Peter Beale trial: Court hears how deceased child (3) was first put on life support
The witness cannot be publicly identified but she’s a paediatrician who treated the child in question after he started suffering complications following his surgery.
JOHANNESBURG - It’s been an emotional afternoon in the Joburg High Court, where a doctor who treated a three-year-old boy who died after paediatric surgeon Peter Beale operated on him has been testifying.
Beale’s fraud and murder trial related to the deaths of three children he operated on - continued on Wednesday with the State calling a new witness to the stand.
She cannot be publicly identified but she’s a paediatrician who treated the child in question after he started suffering complications following his surgery.
In the child in question’s case, Peter Beale’s accused of misrepresenting to his parents that he required what was in the end fatal surgery for Hirschsprung’s Disease when he didn't have it - and of not providing the necessary care after he went into distress following the procedure.
According to the autopsy, the child suffered sepsis because of surgical complications and the current witness spent much of Wednesday going through a report she compiled from her notes, detailing efforts to save him.
Towards the end, when she was relaying to the court how after all efforts had failed and a decision was taken to take him off life support, the doctor teared up.
She fought back tears as she told the court how the family was given an opportunity to perform the last rites before all the various treatments he was receiving were eventually stopped, and the child certified deceased.
Proceedings have now wrapped up for the day and have been adjourned until Thursday morning, when the same witness will continue testifying.
Beale allegedly ignored recommendations from colleague after procedure on boy who later died, court told
JOHANNESBURG - The Joburg High Court has heard how murder-accused paediatric surgeon Peter Beale allegedly ignored recommendations from a colleague after operating on a boy who later died from sepsis in his abdomen.
On Thursday, the witness told the court that as early as the day after the surgery she raised concerns with Beale that there could be “something else going on in the abdomen”.
But she said this was met with “so much pushback” and that at no point over the four days the child spent in hospital, was Beale willing to consider as much.
She said he should have taken her seriously but that he “absolutely refused” to entertain the idea that there was any pathology or complication in the abdomen”.
The case continues.