This is topic What is "Begging the Question?" in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=021736

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Begging the Question.

It's been a long time since I took my introductory Logic class, so I'm a bit hazy here ... but I'm dead certain that most people who use this phrase in public discourse use it WRONG So, could someone who is better versed in the language of formal debate define this fallacy for me?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Description of Begging the Question
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

Petitio Principii.

---

quote:

---

a priori / a posteriori:
Distinction among judgments, propositions, concepts, ideas, arguments, or kinds of knowledge. In each case, the a priori is taken to be independent of sensory experience, which the a posteriori presupposes. An a priori argument, then, is taken to reason deductively from abstract general premises, while an a posteriori argument relies upon specific information derived from sense perception. The necessary truth of an a priori proposition can be determined by reason alone, but the contingent truth of an a posteriori proposition can be discovered only by reference to some matter of fact. Thus, for example:

"3 + 4 = 7." is known a priori.

"Chicago is located on the shore of Lake Michigan." is known a posteriori.

Rationalists typically emphasize the importance of a priori ideas and arguments in establishing genuine knowledge on a firm foundation. Kant argued that synthetic a priori judgments are preconditions for any experience and thus provide a basis for mathematical and scientific knowledge. Empiricists, on the other hand, usually hold that all a priori propositions are merely analytic, so that we must rely on a posteriori propositions for significant information about the world. Kripke challenges even the identification of this distinction with that between the necessary and the contingent.

Recommended Reading: Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysic (Hackett, 1977) {at Amazon.com}; Albert Casullo, A Priori Justification (Oxford, 2003) {at Amazon.com}; New Essays on the A Priori, ed. by Paul Boghossian and Christopher Peacocke (Oxford, 2000) {at Amazon.com}; A Priori Knowledge, ed. by Albert Casullo (Dartmouth, 1999) {at Amazon.com}; and Robert Greenberg, Kant's Theory of a Priori Knowledge (Penn. State, 2001) {at Amazon.com}.

Also see J. A. Brook, IEP, and John Kearns.

---

quote:

---

... but I'm dead certain that most people who use this phrase in public discourse use it WRONG

---

Uhh, I hate to grammar nazi, but wouldn't it be incorrectly?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Godwin's Rule!
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
What does "dead certain" mean?
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
"Dead" has been used to mean "thorough" or "precise" in several phrases, such as "dead reckoning" and "dead shot." Dunno why, but it's a start.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Wrong can be an adverb, too.
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
I emailed the question to Andrew, who is having a fine old time teaching logic this semester. I'll post his reply as soon as he sends it.
 

---

Posted by Paercival (Member # 1408) on :
 
Begging the question refers to the logical fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that needs as much to be proved as the conclusion itself. An example would be: democracy must be the best form of government because the majority are always right. Of course, that the majority are always right needs to be proved, so to use it to prove democracy is best is to beg the question.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Paercival,

I think your explanation leaves out that the conclusion must be definitionally related to the supporting axiom or in some other way circular. This would be circular:

Why is democracy the best form of government?
Because it's rule by the majority.
Why is rule by the majority best?
Because it's democratic.

The proof of your example could be shown without using the word democracy - it would involve political science, an explanation of the benefits, etc. What you described is just relying on unfounded or unproven premises.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
Here is what Andrew wrote in response to the original post:

quote:

---

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't call "begging the question" a fallacy. A perfectly sound argument can be question begging. There are varying accounts of this concept, but I take an argument to be question begging when it asserts as a premise what is really the central matter of the debate at hand.

For example, suppose I claim that your car will be almost worthless in year. You ask me for a reason why, and I say because its value will drop to nearly nothing by then. Well, my argument might be sound, but all I've done is assert what really needs to argued for in this context, since this premise touches on the important issue in this matter: why the value is likely to drop.

Whether one is begging the question is not always clear. It depends on the context, and what the parties to an argument can stipulate to as acceptable premises.

Apparently, some people use the term to describe argumentation that avoids certain issues. Sometimes, it is also used to describe an argument that simply raises additional questions. As a logic teacher, I'd be curious to know of other ways in which this term has been understood.

---