I have the intuition that a common problem with circular reasoning is that it’s logically trivial. E.g.′1+1=2′↔′2=1+1′ has a trivial proof. Before you do the proof, you’re almost sure it is the case, so your beliefs practically don’t change. When I ask why I believe X, I want a story for why this credence and not some other substantially different counterfactual credence. Which a logically trivial insight does not help provide.
I have the intuition that a common problem with circular reasoning is that it’s logically trivial. E.g.′1+1=2′↔ ′2=1+1′ has a trivial proof. Before you do the proof, you’re almost sure it is the case, so your beliefs practically don’t change. When I ask why I believe X, I want a story for why this credence and not some other substantially different counterfactual credence. Which a logically trivial insight does not help provide.
EDIT: inserted second “credence” and “help”.