Begging the Question
"Begging the question" is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed within the premises. In other words, it occurs when someone's argument assumes the truth of the conclusion they are trying to prove. This circular reasoning can make an argument seem valid when it is actually flawed.
5 Key excerpts on "Begging the Question"
eBook - ePub- Robert Gass, John Seiter(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...The punch line is not only unexpectedly amusing, it also illustrates how tacit premises may be taken for granted. When people commit the fallacy of Begging the Question or, if you prefer Latin, petitio principi, they take a premise for granted that has yet to be proven (Ikuenobe, 2002; Walton, 1994). In essence, an arguer who begs the question is slipping a presupposition into an argument. For example, a shoe salesperson who says, “Shall I box those up for you or would you prefer to wear them?” is assuming the customer has already agreed to buy the shoes that she or he just tried on. Another classic example is a reporter who asks a politician, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The question presumes a history of spouse abuse, so if the politician answers “Yes,” it implies he was formerly a wife beater, and if he answers “No,” it suggests he’s still a wife beater. Rather than answer yes or no, the politician might respond, “I have never beaten my wife. Are you still a bed wetter?” Incidentally, in everyday life, people often misuse the term “begs the question.” They assume it is synonymous with saying “raises the question” or “invites the question,” which is understandable considering that question begging may occur in question form, as the above examples illustrate. However, the fallacy does not require asking a question at all. In fact, “to beg the question” is to take a claim for granted without any proof that it is true. Consider, for example, the following dialogue: Chuck: “Wayne Gretsky is the greatest athlete of all time.” Darnell: “How do you figure?” Chuck: “Because he is the greatest player of the greatest sport in the world; hockey.” Darnell: “Gretsky’s prowess notwithstanding, you’re assuming that hockey is the greatest sport in the world.” Chuck: “Because it is!” As you can see in this dialogue, Chuck begs the question by making a declarative statement, not by asking a question...
eBook - ePubA Class Room Logic
Deductive and Inductive, with Special Application to the Science and Art of Teaching
- George Hastings McNair(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Perlego(Publisher)
...He insisted that the minister should answer questions by a simple yes or no, asserting that every question should be replied to in that manner.” The reverend gentleman arose and said, “Mr. Bradlaugh, will you allow me to ask you a question on these terms?” “Certainly,” said Mr. Bradlaugh. “Then, may I ask, have you given up beating your wife?” Begging the Question (Petitio Principii). This is a fallacy of deriving a conclusion from notions which in themselves demand proof. The fallacy is not committed when the assertion is self-evident. It is easy to claim that our opponent is Begging the Question as soon as we see that he is getting the better of us. One may himself beg the question by being too ready to charge others with Begging the Question. When the opponent adopts premises which are commonly accepted, he does not beg the question. One commits the fallacy when he seems to prove the conclusion more satisfactorily than he really does. This he may accomplish by covertly taking for granted the truth of notions which have not the stamp of universal approval. The fallacy of Begging the Question assumes three forms: (1) The assumption of an unproved premise (assumptio non probata). In this either the major or the minor premise, or both may demand more substantial proof...
eBook - ePubSimple Formal Logic
With Common-Sense Symbolic Techniques
- Arnold vander Nat(Author)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...But there is something else that happens in this type of argument. The purpose of this argument is to establish (prove) a proposal X regarding some controversial matter. The proposal X has been challenged, and the listener expects an argument that will settle the matter once and for all. Now, what is unique here is that the arguer presents premisses that are completely unsupported—except that the proposal X itself is secretly or explicitly made a reason to support the premisses. But that, of course, is the very question that was supposed to be proved. The premisses are assuming for their own support the very conclusion that they are supposed to be supporting. The argument goes around in a vicious circle, and ultimately, the proposal X remains unsupported. An example of this fallacy is the following: “I know you question whether God exists. But, have you considered that the Bible itself says that God exists, and whatever the Bible says must be true?” The Bible says that God exists. Whatever the Bible says is true. So, God most assuredly exists. The arguer does not explicitly say why he asserts Premiss 2 to be true, but the background argument is certainly something like: God exists. God is infallible. God is the author of the Bible. So, What the Bible says is true. People who believe that what the Bible says must be true believe that because they believe that God exists. So, the argument originally proposed does indeed Beg the Question. This argument and all cases of Question Begging have the general form: Main argument for proposal X Background argument for premiss P 2 1. P 1 premiss 1. X premiss = orig. concl. 2. P 2 premiss 2. Q 1 premiss 3. P 3 premiss 3. Q 2 premiss 4. etc. 4. etc. So, X conclusion So, P 2 This pattern makes it clear that the reasoning goes around in a circle. The proposal X always remain unsupported, and so, as conclusion, proposal X is never established. 24...
eBook - ePub- Linden J. Ball, Valerie A. Thompson, Linden J. Ball, Valerie A. Thompson(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Historically, fallacies struck researchers as arguments that, to some, seem valid – thus persuasive – though they are in fact logically invalid (Hamblin, 1970). This definition presupposes formal logic as a standard for arguments (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1995). Certain fallacies follow from this view: in our table, ‘formal’ fallacies follow from classical propositional and predicate logic, syllogistics, and standard modal extensions. However, it becomes immediately apparent from the traditional catalogue of fallacies that classical logic does not suffice. Circular arguments (e.g., ‘God exists, because God exists’) are deductively valid: if the premise ‘God exists’ is true, the conclusion that therefore ‘God exists’ is necessarily true also. Nevertheless, circular arguments (or ‘Begging the Question’) are paradigmatically fallacious (on circular arguments, see Hahn, 2011). Furthermore, classical logic is insufficient, because most real-world arguments involve uncertainty, almost by their very nature. In everyday life, people argue where disagreement exists; disagreement is least likely where states of affairs are true or false by necessity. It would be highly unsatisfactory to label everyday argumentation ‘fallacious’ simply because it typically involves non-deductive inference...
eBook - ePub- Harry Gensler(Author)
- 2002(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Suppose someone argues: “We can’t be free, since all our actions are determined.” This assumes the italicized premise: All human actions are determined. No determined action is free. ∴ No human actions are free. We should be aware that we’re assuming this controversial premise. So a good argument should be valid (or strong) and have all true premises, this truth and validity should be evident, and the argument should be clearly stated. We gave two further conditions; a good argument should: 4. avoid circularity, ambiguity, and emotional language; and 5. be relevant to the issue at hand. I’ll now introduce five common fallacies that correspond to these conditions. Our first fallacy is circularity: An argument is circular (question begging) if it presumes the truth of what is to be proved. A series of arguments is circular if it uses a given premise to prove a conclusion—and then uses that conclusion to prove the premise. A simple example is “The soul is immortal because it can’t die”; the premise here just repeats the conclusion in different words—so the argument takes for granted what it’s supposed to prove. A circular series of arguments might have this form: “A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.” Here’s a second fallacy—and a crude argument that exemplifies the fallacy: An argument is ambiguous if it changes the meaning of a term or phrase within the argument. Love is an emotiom. God is love. ∴ God is an emotion. Premise 1 requires that we take “love” to mean “the feeling of love”—which makes premise 2 false or doubtful. Premise 2 requires that we take “love” to mean “a supremely loving person” or “the source of love”—which makes premise 1 false or doubtful...
