Circular arguments have no correlation with reality except by chance- you may as well make something up and believe it. It would make about as much sense.
I don’t believe this is true. A circular argument is at least internally consistent, and that prunes away a lot of ways to be inconsistent with reality.
I don’t believe this is true. A circular argument is at least internally consistent, and that prunes away a lot of ways to be inconsistent with reality.
This assumes the falsity of skepticism to begin with. Even then, it is possible for a circular argument to be internally inconsistent.