"Begging the question" versus "begs the question"

by AlmostAtheist 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AlmostAtheist

  Hey All,

  I've often found myself saying something in a post, then starting the endgame with "This begs the question...". But I stop myself, because I've heard those that know the "rules" of logic accusing people of the "classic fallacy" of "begging the question". Ooops, don't want to commit that fallacy right when I'm about to make my point!

  But it didn't seem fallacious, it seemed reasonable. But then again, logical fallacies DO seem reasonable to the person making them. So I thought I should avoid it. But changing the wording doesn't help, does it?

  Well, I finally broke down and looked it up today. Turns out that there are two different flavors of this phrase. If I say, "I was walking around the block at 2am this morning, and I found a wallet! (Which begs the question, 'What was I doing out at 2am?!?')", that is NOT an example of a logical fallacy. This is the form that is most common and it's perfectly reasonable. It makes the point that there is an obvious question arising from the foregoing and now you're going to bring it up.

  The fallacious version looks like "circular reasoning", where you think you make your point by restating it. For instance I might say, "The Bible is flawed, because it claims that God performed miracles. Miracles are impossible, therefore the Bible is wrong." This is fallacious because it presupposes that miracles are impossible, without stating any premise supporting it. Not the single best example, but I hope it gets the point across.

  "Begging the question" seems like a pretty lousy name for this particular fallacy. Maybe it's a great name, and I just misunderstand it?

  Maybe this won't be a revelation to anybody else, but it was definitely one for me. So I can once again beg the question, though I will try hard not to beg the question. (Gotta love logic!)

  Dave
• 

  Enigma One

  Of course this begs the question...does anyone care?
  
  
  LOL - just teasin
• 

  katiekitten

  Im beggin' for mercy - I just cant digest this kind of logic at teatime.

  Its all a storm in the eye of a needle anyway..
• 

  Enigma One

  I thought it was a rich guy couldn't fit thru the eye of a needle....and a tempest in a teapot.
  
  You english people really screw up the english language. :P LOL
• 

  katiekitten

  Thats what I love about our cousins across the water - you are so literal you unpick a joke and explain it.
• 

  Enigma One

  Don't get all uppity with me young lady. I might just have to bend you over knee for a couple of swats.
  
  How does one "unpick" something by the way? LOL
  
  
  
• 

  Leolaia

  Instead of saying "which begs the question", why not say "which raises the question", which is the exact same thought but avoids the unseemly connection with the name of a fallacy...

  I don't think it's a bad name for a fallacy...as the fallacy does beg the question as much as the other example, the difference is that the question it begs is an unstated premise in the logical argument (i.e. not an ancilliary question as in your first example, but a question critical to the argument itself).
• 

  TD

  
  

  Hi Dave,

  "Begging the Question" Petito principii is a reference to the central issue, "Question" in a debate.

  In any sort of debate, one can be overaly pedantic and demand that their opponent prove every single minor point in detail, (A fundamentalist demanding that someone like Leolaia prove that anthropos means "man" is a good example) OR they can do their opponent the courtesy of conceding points that are only tangential to the central question.

  However if one side wants the other to concede the central issue itself, (By using premises that assume that answer) this is a logical fallacy.
• 

  Leolaia

  A fundamentalist demanding that someone like Leolaia prove that anthropos means "man" is a good example

  Remember, Mr. Picard Loves_Truth? Debating him was very much like that. The tactic must be...exhaust your opponent with overload for having to support every single detail. Or in trying to show pseudo-scholar that stauros did mean "cross" as well as "stake"...except there, he would stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge the facts being shown to him...
• 

  enderby

  begging the question is a violation of the principle of good reasoning that requires us to avoid circularity, or not to assume in our premises what we are attempting to establish in our conclusions.
  
  for ex: 1. How do we know that we have here in the Bible a right criterion of truth?
  2. We know because of the Bible's claims for itself.
  3. All through the scriptures are found ... expressions such as "Thus says the Lord", "The Lord said", and "God spoke".
  4. Such statements occur no less than 1,904 times in the 39 books of the Old Testament.
  
  whatever reasons you give to back up a claim must be supporting statements. a statement is not a supporting statement if it merely restates the conclusion or implicity contains it. what makes statement #2 unacceptable as a premise to an audience is that it assumes precisely what it is supposed to prove. it therefore begs the question. to accept statement 2 as a reason for statement 1, one must already assume that statement 1 has been established.
  in order to avoid begging the question, you need to resist the temptation to use premises that merely restate the claim you are trying to establish.
  hope this helps.
  your humble logician,
  enderby