Begging the question

src: i.ytimg.com

Begging a question is a logical error that occurs when a place of argument considers the truth of a conclusion, rather than supporting it. This is a kind of circular reasoning and informal fallacy, in which an argument makes an argument requiring the desired conclusion to be true. This often happens in an indirect way such that the existence of hidden errors or at least not easily visible.

The term "begging the question", as it is usually expressed, originated in the 16th century as an incorrect translation of the Latin petitio principii , which actually translates to "assuming a starting point". In modern vernacular usage, "asking questions" is often used to mean "raising questions" or "avoiding questions". In a context that demands obedience to the technical definition of the term, many consider this use to be false.

Video Begging the question

Example

All crows are black; therefore, all birds that are not black are not crows.

Left-handed people are better painters because people who use the right hand can not paint either.

Both of these arguments are formally good in that, assuming the initial premise is true, the conclusion logically follows. But they remain inconclusive because the assumption of the initial premise to be true also means that the assumption of the conclusion is correct.

Maps Begging the question

History

The original sentence used by Aristotle from where begged the question down is: ?? ?? ????? (Or sometimes ?????) ??????, "Asking for the first thing." The meaning Aristotle meant was closely related to the kind of dialectical argument he discussed in his book Topic, book VIII: a formal debate in which the defending party affirms the thesis that the attacking party must try to disprove by asking yes-or not questions and concludes some inconsistencies between the original answer and thesis.

In the form of this stylish debate, the proposition made by the answerer to defend is called "the beginning" (????????????) and one of the rules of debate is that the questioner can not just ask for it (it will be trivial and uninteresting). Aristotle discusses this in the Sophical Disclaimer and in Prior Analytics book II, (64b, 34-65a 9, for circular reasons see 57b, 18-59b, 1).

The stylish dialectical exchanges that Aristotle discussed in the Topics include rules for making debate scores, and one important issue is precisely the question of asking the beginning - which includes not only making the actual thesis adopted by the answering becomes a question, but also makes the question of a sentence that is too close to the thesis (for example, PA II 16).

The term was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. Latin version, petitio principii , "requesting starting point", can be interpreted differently. Petitio (from peto ), in the post-classical context in which the sentence appears, means assuming or postulate , but in the older classical sense it means petition , request or plead . Principii , genitive principium , means initial , basic or premise (an argument). Literally petitio principii means "assuming the premise" or "assuming the original point".

The Latin phrase comes from the Greek ?? ?? ???? ????????? ( to en archei aiteisthai , "ask original point") in Aristotle Preliminary Analysis II xvi 64b28-65a26:

Begging or assuming a point on a composed problem (to take the expression in the widest sense) fails to show the required proposition. But there are other ways in which this can happen; for example, if the argument does not take the form of syllogism at all, it may argue with a lesser known or equally unknown premise, or it can set its predecessor through its consequences; for a demonstration of what is more certain and earlier. Now begging the question is none of this. [...] However, if the relationship B to C in such a way that they are identical, or that they can obviously be converted, or that one applies to another, then he pleads the point in question.... [B] what is not obvious by itself... either because the identical predicate belongs to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to an identical subject.

The Aristotelian distinction between apodic science and other forms of non-demonstrative knowledge lies in epistemology and metaphysics in which the precise first principle becomes clear to a trained dialecticist:

Aristotle's counsel in ' S.E. 27 to solve the errors of Begging The question is brief. If a person realizes that a person is asked to acknowledge his original point, one should refuse to do so, even if the point in question is a reputable belief. On the other hand, if a person fails to realize that someone has acknowledged the point in question and the questioner uses the concession to produce a clear rejection, then one must turn the table on a sophisticated opponent by himself indicating the wrong done. In a dialectical exchange, it is a worse mistake to be caught asking the original point than by accidentally granting such a request. Answering in such a position has failed to detect when different utterances mean the same thing. The questioner, if he did not realize he was asking the original points, had made the same mistake. But if he has consciously requested his point of origin, he declares himself ontologically confused: he has misunderstood what is inexplicable (known through other things) into something self-explanatory (known through himself). In pointing this out to the wrong questioner, one not only shows the tactical error of psychological judgment by the questioner. Not only that the questioner mistakenly assumes that the starting point, if placed under the guise of a semantic equivalent, or a logical equivalent, or embracing a universal, or divided into exhausting parts, would be more persuasive to the answering. Instead, the questioner mistakenly assumes that the obscure fact of the world is the first clear principle. For Aristotle, certain facts are quite clear while others are not merely reflections of human cognitive abilities. This is primarily a reflection of the structure of noncognitive reality. In short, successful completion of such mistakes requires a strong understanding of the true explanatory power. Without the knowledge of what things are clear and which are not, the owner is responsible for finding arguments pleading persuasively.

Thomas Fowler believes that the Petitio Principii will be more accurately called Petitio QuÃÆ'Â|siti , which literally" begs the question ".

src: i.ytimg.com

Definitions

To "ask questions" is to propose an argument that its validity requires that its conclusions be true.

Also called petitio principii , the error is an attempt to support the claim with a premise which in itself presupposes the claim. It is an attempt to prove propositions while simultaneously taking propositions for granted.

Given a variable C (claim), "asking a question" is an attempt to assert that C -> C . In two variables, C (claims) and P (premise) , it attempts to bypass (C -> P) -> C as a claim valid P -> C . This is a form of circular reasoning, and may involve a number of variables.

When an error involves only one variable, sometimes called proteron hysteron , as in the statement:

• "Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality ."

This form of error may not be immediately obvious. Linguistic variations in syntax, sentence structure and literary tools can hide them, as are other factors involved in the delivery of arguments. This may take the form of premises without an essential basis but not identical to conclusions, or "controversial or questionable for the same reason that can usually lead one to question the conclusion":

... [S] eldom is anyone who would just put a word-by-word conclusion into place... Instead, arguer might use phraseology that hides the fact that its conclusion is disguised as a premise. The conclusion is repeated to look different and then placed in place.

For example, one can blur a mistake by first making a concrete statement, then trying to pass an identical statement, delivered in abstract terms, as evidence for the original. One can also "produce the proposition expressed in the words of the Saxon origin, and give a reason for that same proposition expressed in Norman's words", as here:

• "To enable every human freedom of speech without boundaries must always, as a whole, be advantageous to the State, therefore it is very conducive to the interests of society that every individual should enjoy unlimited freedom expressing his sentiments."

When an error requesting a question is done in more than one step, some authors dubbed it circulus in probando ( reason in circle ) or, more commonly, circular reasons .

Begging a question is not considered a formal fallacy (a faulty argument for using a wrong deductive step). Rather, it is a kind of informal error that is logically valid but not persuasive, as it fails to prove anything other than what has been assumed.

src: img.haikudeck.com

Related errors

Closely related to asking a question is an error of a circular reason ( circulus in probando ), an error where the reason starts with a conclusion. The individual components of a circular argument can be logically valid because if the place is true, the conclusion must be true, and has no relevance. However, the circular reason is not persuasive because the listener who doubts his or her conclusions also doubts the premise that leads to it.

Begging questions similar to complex questions (also known as trick question or error of many questions ): the question, to be valid, requires the truth of the question others that have not been set. For example, "What color dress is Mary wearing?" may be wrong to assume that Mary is wearing a dress. Unless it has been established that his clothes are clothing, the question is mistaken because he can wear trousers.

Another related error is ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant conclusion : an argument that fails to resolve the intended issue, but seems to do so. An example might be the situation where A and B debate whether the law allows A to do something. If A tries to support his position with the argument that the law should let it do the thing in question, then he is guilty ignoratio elenchi .

src: images.slideplayer.com

The modern usage

Many modern English speakers use ask questions to mean "bear questions", "suggest questions," "raise questions", "invite questions", "avoid questions", or even "ignore questions"; and follow the phrase with the question, for example: "I weigh 120 kg and have a badly blocked artery, which raises the question: why I have not started exercising?" In a philosophical, logical, grammatical and legal context, some commentators believe that such use is wrong , or at least, unclear.

src: img.haikudeck.com

See also

• Ambiguity
• Capture-22 (logic)
• Definition of circle
• Circular reason
• Consequentia mirabilis
• Eufemism Treadmill
• Error definition
• Open question argument
• Polysilogism
• Argument regression ( diallelus )
• Spin (public relations)
• Tautology (logic)

src: images.slideplayer.com

Note

src: i.pinimg.com

References

Source of the article : Wikipedia