Begging the question
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.[1][2][3][4] Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando or circular reasoning. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BC, in his book Prior Analytics.
The phrase is also commonly used to indicate that some crucial questions are relevant to the topic at hand. For example: It begs the questions, (1) how did he do it, and (2) why? This use, however, has nothing to do with the fallacy.
Contents |
[edit] History
The Latin term was incorporated into English in the sixteenth century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii (from petere: to attack, aim at, desire, beg, entreat, ask (for), reach towards, make for; and principium: beginning or principle), literally means "begging or taking for granted of the beginning or of a principle." That is, the premise (the principle, the beginning) depends on the truth of the very matter in question. The Latin phrase comes from the Greek en archei aiteisthai in Aristotle's Prior Analytics II xvi:
Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) in failing to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken syllogistic form at all […]. If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue.
Fowler's Deductive Logic (1887) argues that the Latin origin is more properly Petitio Quæsiti which translates as "begging the question."
[edit] Traditional usage
 |
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009) |
"That begs the question" is an appropriate reply when a given argument depends on what it is trying to support, and as a result, the proposition is being used to prove itself. For example:
- "Why am I the boss? It's because I call the shots around here."
- "Of course I had a reason, or I wouldn't have done it."
- "I didn't steal it. I'm no thief!"
[edit] Logical Form
|
|
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009) |
Some argue that since it's not a formal fallacy it has no logical form. While others argue that it can be said to have the form:
- 1. P.
- (any number of premises)
- Therefore, P.
In other words: An argument is begging the question if the conclusion is used as a premise in an argument.
[edit] Contemporary usage and variations
The traditional Aristotelian usage is frequently supplanted by a contemporary usage that refers to presenting evidence (in support of a conclusion) that is less likely to be accepted than merely asserting the conclusion.
A specific form of this is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion which is no more known to be true than the more specific assertion:
- All intentional acts of killing human beings are morally wrong.
- The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being. Therefore,
- The death penalty is morally wrong.
If the first premise is accepted as an axiom within some moral system or code, this reasoning is a sound argument against the death penalty. If not, it is in fact a weaker argument than a mere assertion that the death penalty is wrong, since the first premise is less firmly based than the conclusion (the premise can be false while the conclusion is true - that is, the premise is logically "stronger" than the conclusion).
More generally, "begging the question" can be considered the following:
Let T be a thesis advanced by Smith. Let A be a proposition forwarded by Jones as counting against T. Then Jones begs the question against Smith’s thesis T if:
- A is damaging to T,
- A is not conceded by Smith, does not follow from propositions already conceded by Smith, and
- is not otherwise ascribable to Smith as what we might call a “reasonable presumption” or a “default” (for example, the belief that water is wet or that Washington, D.C. is the capital city of the United States).[5]
Fowler's Modern English Usage classifies begging the question in a similar fashion (for example, in contrast to the meanings from Merriam-Webster,[1] the Oxford English Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary). Fowler states that it is "The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself."
In a related sense, the phrase is occasionally used to mean "avoiding the question". Those who use this variation are explaining that the argument lacks a premise, and they have missed the self-circularity of the argument because of it.
[edit] Related fallacies
Begging the question is also related to the fallacy of many questions — a fallacy, more commonly known as "loaded questions", that is committed when a question presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved in its discussion.
[edit] Valid circular reasoning
The fallacy in begging the question or circular reasoning in its usual sense lies not in the circularity of the argument, but in the initial assumption of the truth of one of the premises, or, as Douglas Walton puts it: "Arguing in a circle becomes a fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question where an attempt is made to evade the burden of proving one of the premises of an argument by basing it on the prior acceptance of the conclusion to be proved."[6] While acknowledging the need for proof or observation of such a premise, circular reasoning can be a useful tool in logic or mathematics. It can be used to prove the reverse of an argument, which could otherwise be very difficult. In other words, if the last statement in a line of proofs can be connected to the first, all arguments in this line work both ways.
To illustrate this, assume that 'A → B' means that statement A is shown to prove statement B (but not the other way around). Now if we know that A → B → C → D and we find that D → A, we can complete the circle and by simple logic we can deduce that A ↔ B ↔ C ↔ D. In fact, we can put the statements in any order, e.g. C ↔ A ↔ D ↔ B is also true. It can be said that the premises A, B, C and D are equivalent, i.e. they are found to contain exactly the same information. If we can observe or prove any of these statements, the others must also be true. This observation or proof is obviously crucial, it forms a line to the circle in order to make the entire argument valid. Of course, this works for any number of steps in a circular argument.."[7]
[edit] Colloquial usage
|
|
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008) |
Sometimes to beg the question is used to mean "to raise the question", or "the question really ought to be addressed". [8] An example of such a use would be, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Although proponents of the traditional meaning will criticize this formally incorrect usage, it has nonetheless come into widespread use and in informal contexts may actually be the more common use of the term. The phrases circular reasoning, circular logic, and circular arguments have come to be used in places where logicians and philosophers would tend to use "beg the question".
A possible origin for this confusion in usage is the likeness of the word "beg" to the word "beget", which can mean "to originate." The phrase "to beget the question" might have been confused in time with the similar-sounding (but very different) notion from logic "to beg the question". An example of this usage is found in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume, published in 1748: "This begets a very natural question; What is meant by a sceptic?" (Section XII).
Another possible origin[original research?] is that the situation is such that the most obvious question to be asked is the question given, as if the situation is anthropomorphically begging, or pleading, for the participants to ask the question. For example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. The most obvious question to ask is: how are we ever going to balance the budget?"
Arguments over such usage are an example of debate over linguistic prescription and description. As John McIntyre, Baltimore Sun assistant managing editor, puts it: "Writers who were not taught logic in school — evidently a great many — will think that 'to beg a question' means 'to give rise to a question.' In that they are like the multitude of writers who have appropriated technical but dimly understood language. A parameter, for example, is 'a constant, with variable values, used as a referent for determining other variables.' If you are a mathematician, that definition from Webster's New World College Dictionary probably means something to you. If you are not a mathematician, you are probably using parameter to mean a boundary or limit or guideline, or perhaps nothing in particular. People do write this way. Some even talk this way. Eventually, loose applications of technical terms to different contexts find their way into the dictionary, some embedding themselves in the language. That is fine. But in the interval, anyone who wishes to write precisely will be cautious."[9]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Fallacy: Begging the Question
- ^ Begging the question - Skeptic's Dictionary
- ^ Mission: Critical (Circular Reasoning)
- ^ Beg the question - Definitions from Dictionary.com
- ^ John Woods, Begging the question is not a fallacy.
- ^ D.N. Walton, Circular Reasoning in A Companion to Epistemology
- ^ Gary Curtis, Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question The Fallacy Files
- ^ Safire, William, ON LANGUAGE; Take My Question Please! The New York Times, 6 July 1998, accessed 5 March 2008
- ^ John McIntyre, "If beggars could question", Baltimore Sun, March 5, 2007
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
