- the evidence has authority/truth/value, because the evidence is objective/mindless/impartial.
- that which is impartial is true because it is rational and tempered with reason.
- that which is reasonable is true because it is based on a preponderance of the evidence.
notice how through each stage why/how evidence has any merit/authority is missed.
what the reasoning is trying to get at is that pragmatic utility is the core from which all value must be derived, but it goes in the opposite direction ‘explaining’ towards greater complexity and intricacy and ‘beauty’ rather than less. it is in a sense aimed at indoctrinating, via dogmatic presentation of way to consider.
the scientific method is similarly circular. point being paradigms are inherently and exclusively circular so one can’t use that trait as honest/earnest criticism, for it is hypocritical. the only time arguments aren’t circular is when they are incomplete. 2+2=4 but what does is the inverse? the creation and maintenance of the circle is what makes it tenable/viable and valid to consider within. 2+2=4 is a valid dogma to consider within but the ‘addition’ of subtraction as a same class alternative allows far more utility and depth of consideration.
one isn’t ceasing the dogma, but adding more layers to it. people don’t reject a dogma because it is circular but because it lacks some maxim/ideal in the meaning/contention.
edit: arguments which aren’t circular, are fragmented/incomplete. which leads them to be perceived as of negligible value. part of why the bible can be considered to be competing with ‘evolution’, even though evolution is a fragmented idea which only pertains to and portends to explain only a subset of the allegations of the competing paradigm. this allows the more complete paradigm to attack the incompleteness and invalidity of the more accurate paradigm. evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe, thus it can’t compete and be argued against as it maintains a null state.
more simply, christianity says god gone done it. evolution says nothing. you can’t really argue against nothing. however a person maintaining nothing can argue against something. so there is a disadvantage of the person maintaining a tenable position. so when a group has one explanation for a series of topics, and the alternative paradigm only has an explanation for one of the topics, the incompleteness is seen as negative.
part of why ‘science’ is seen often as a unifying group. it allows the existence of an “evolutionist” both as a means of othering and labeling into a proper noun group (like athiest) and as a meaning of self identity. it allows greater comparison and allows a presenter to attempt to argue superiority in terms of the general when it can’t provide specifics.