Nelson Goodman's reflective equilibrium framework treats inference rules and accepted conclusions as mutually justifying, implying no asymmetry privileges one form of circularity over the other.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Circularity (in reasoning)(as the potential problem that Goodman addresses): A logical problem where your reasoning loops back on itself—for example, using a conclusion to prove the rule that created that conclusion, which creates no real progress in justification.
Mutual justification(describing the relationship between inference rules and conclusions): When two things support and validate each other equally, like saying 'your rule is correct because it produces conclusions I accept, and my conclusions are correct because they follow your rule.'
Nelson Goodman(the philosopher whose theory is being discussed): A 20th-century American philosopher who developed theories about how symbols (like words, pictures, and artworks) work and mean things.
asymmetry(Modal logic frame semantics): A frame property expressible in hybrid logic by the formula c→□¬◇c, meaning if world x accesses world y, then y does not access x.

Based on where you are in your exploration