I have a question.
Can someone explain exactly what “begging the question” means? I have a general gist of its meaning but can anyone give an example?
I’ve always heard it in philosophical debates. “Opponents of this philosophy have argued by saying blah blah blah, but that’s begging the question…”
Alphagene
Funny… some friends and I just had a discussion about this the other day.
“Begging the question” means to make statements that are designed to get the listener to ask a specific question. A mild version would be for me to say “Boy, yesterday was really tough.” I’m practically begging you to ask me what went on yesterday.
“Begging the question” means that a statement is made that depends upon the point being argued- circular reasoning. An example:
A1:“My dad knows everything.”
B1:“How do you know that?”
A2:“Because he said so.”
A2 can only be considered evidence if you accept A1 to be true. As A1 is the statement in question this is circular reasoning/begging the question. I do not know the etymology of this phrase.
It is often misused, usually on network TV. If some says “This begs the question…” and then states a question, they’re probably thinking (wrongly) that “begs” means “assumes”.
Sorry- the last word of my previous post should be “raises”, not “assumes”.
typical example of misuse: “This begs the question- did these people need to die?”
I think that Athena’a explanation/example is how “begging the question” may be commonly understood but it is not the accepted definition (I know- accepted by who? Academia?) and doesn’t address the exapmle Alphagene gave.
Think link explains it to a degree.
http://webserver.maclab.comp.uvic.ca/writersguide/pages/LogBegQuest.html
“I wept because I had no shoes, then I met a man with no feet. So I took his shoes” - Dave Barry
You can probably look around great debates and find tons of examples. Here’s my chance to get a little extra dig on the jeans vs. ties arguement. Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
There is no course of life so weak and sottish as that which is managed by order, method, and discipline. -Montaigne
My understanding of the phrase was most like the example Mojo gave. That the “evidence” given in support of an argument relies on the argument being true. Thanks for the good example, Mojo. I remember it being used in Existence of God debates.
But the example given in Strainger’s link is different than Mojo’s example. The url says:
The flaw here is not one of circular logic. It seems more like just trying to prove something using poor logic. A poem’s status as the most irritating poem written by Poplar doesn’t make it an inherently bad poem.
In Pooch’s example, the argument that ties are more professional is also not begging the question in the cirular sense.
“You should wear ties beacuse they make you look professional”
The flaw here is the assumption that ties make you look professional. If the speaker supported that statement, his logic would be valid. But the argument is not circular. Maybe a a statement closer to begging the question would be “Ties make you look professional because professional people wear ties.”
Check out
http://ftp.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
The site states that “begging the question” is “Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.”
Here’s a good example:
Hmmm… I need to ponder this some more.
Alphagene
Just to further confuse the crap out of everybody, especially me, one site distingushes circularity from question-begging.
The site goes on the mention that a circular argument can be question-begging or not question-begging and a non-circular argument can be question-begging or not question-begging.
It gives four examples:
Circular and Question-begging:
Intoxicating beverages should be banned, because they can make people drunk."
Circular and not Question-begging:
People with suicidal tendencies are insane, because they want to kill themselves."
Not Circular and Question-begging:
“The drinking age should be lowered to 18, because 18-year-olds are mature enough to drink.”
Not Circular and not Question-begging:
“Gun-control laws are wrong, because they violate the citizen’s right to bear arms.”
My brain hurts.
Alphagene
I tried reading the page you linked to AG but well, my head started hurting too. Numbering their examples that you gave, I have problems with statments 2 and 3. I stand by the assertion that “begging the question” involves circular logic.
Example 2 is redundant, circular, and fits the definition of “begging the question” that they give. You can’t argue against one without arguing against the other, especially since they’re the exact same (just reworded).
Example 3 as far as I can tell is perfectly fine in terms of logic if you insert the inference that mature people should be able to drink. This is an assumption/inference but it is not begging the question. You can argue against the drinking age being lowered to 18 without arguing against 18 year olds being mature enough to drink, therefore it doesn’t fit their def’n of BtQ.
To expand, I think that an argument that “begs the question” is a more complex circular argument (a CA would simply be A=B because B=A). However, “begging the question” employs circular logic.
Hmmm. Good points Mojo. Now I have even **more[/m] to ponder. Let me try some logic of my own (Gawd help us all)
Let’s break down example #2:
“People with suicidal tendencies are insane, because they want to kill themselves.”
Now lets formalize it:
P: Only an insane person would attempt suicide
C: A person who attempts suicide is insane.
The statement made in the premise is the same statement made in the conclusion. Therefore, by definition, the logic used in example 2 is circular. Unless I lost something in the simplification process.
You’re absolutely right about circularity necessitating their definition of BtQ, Mojo: If the the logic of a statement is circular, the premise is the same as the conclusion (P=C). Therefore an objection to C is automatically an objection to P, therefore it is, according to their given definition, begging the question. Therefore, circular logic by their definition begs the question.
Phooey.
I’m going to use the original definition of BtQ you gave, Mojo: That the “evidence” given in support of an argument relies on the argument being true. It’s more elegant and less abstract.
Anyone got an Excedrin?
Alphagene
Now I see how wrong I was.
Are these phrases (“catch-22”, “begging the question”, etc.) only used in the USA? Or are they universal?
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire
The use od “begging” in the phrase “begging the question” is appropriate.
From Miriam-Webster:
beg (v)
2 b : to require as necessary or appropriate
3 a : EVADE, SIDESTEP <begged the real problems> b : to pass over or ignore by assuming to be established or settled <beg the question>
However by far the most common use of “begging” is the one you desciribed, E1, essentially meaning to ask.
Alphagene
It took me a few hours to find this again–don’t get up-- it is the Fallacy Tutorial and you can get it here:
[url http://macport.sut.ac.jp/soft/edu/fallacy-tutorial-pro-31.hqx
You can study and even test yourself on all the fallacies and then go to Great Debates and kick some ass.
There is no course of life so weak and sottish as that which is managed by order, method, and discipline. -Montaigne
I give up.