Circular reasoning can invalidate a scientific causation argument in court.

Evidence

“What you say is very interesting,” mused the judge. “It’s also very disturbing. On the one hand, you say that TCE is the cause of all these people’s symptoms because TCE is in the water. Then, in the next breath, you turn around and say that because all these people got these symptoms, we therefore conclude that TCE was in the water. This suggests to me that you’re bootstrapping. If that’s true, I’m wondering whether there’s any point in proceeding. You might as well call this case to a halt right now because you can’t possibly win it.” — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action, 2261

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The judge’s ‘bootstrapping’ objection names a real epistemic failure mode: using symptoms as both hypothesis and evidence for causation.
• XREF: Connects to the catalog’s recurring tension between lawful fact-finding and circular proofs in adversarial settings.