[Vision2020] Never argue with an atheist was Living in Idaho

Tue Jan 9 17:01:15 PST 2007

Begging the question
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Begging the question in logic, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name petitio principii, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. Such an argument is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion.

Today, the phrase is also frequently seen in a different usage with the meaning "raise the question". In academic contexts this use is rare and widely regarded as incorrect, but it has nevertheless become very common in the news media.

      Contents
        a.. 1 History
        b.. 2 Examples 
          a.. 2.1 Variations
        c.. 3 Related fallacies
        d.. 4 Modern usage
        e.. 5 See also
        f.. 6 References
        g.. 7 External links

[edit] History
The term was translated into English from the Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii (petitio: petition, request; principii, genitive of principium: beginning, basis, premise of an argument), literally means "a request for the beginning or premise." That is, the premise 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, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain and is prior. Now begging the question is none of these. [...] 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.... [B]egging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself...either because predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to subjects which are identical."
Fowler's Deductive Logic (1887) argues that the Latin origin is more properly Petitio Quæsiti which is literally "begging the question" as opposed to "petitioning the premise".

[edit] Examples
The following argument is a standard example of begging the question: "The Bible says God exists, and the Bible must be right since it is the revealed word of God, so God exists." Obviously enough, no one who doubts the conclusion has any reason to accept the second premise, which presupposes it. This is, of course, a blatant example meant solely to illustrate the fallacy; less contrived instances may be much more subtle.

It is important to note that such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was classified as a Material fallacy rather than a Logical fallacy by Aristotle, and similarly, is classified as an informal fallacy today.

Formally speaking, the simplest form of begging the question follows the following structure. For some proposition p:

  a.. p implies p
  b.. suppose p
  c.. therefore, p.
However, the following structure is more common:

  a.. p implies q
  b.. q implies r
  c.. r implies p
  d.. suppose p
  e.. therefore, q
  f.. therefore, r
  g.. therefore, p.
The syntactic presentation of the fallacy is rarely this transparent, as is shown for example in the above argument purportedly proving God's existence.

[edit] Variations
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.

Fowler's Modern English Usage classifies begging the question in a somewhat different fashion (for example, in contrast to the meanings from Merriam-Webster, 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." This is more commonly known as the Fallacy of many questions.

[edit] Related fallacies
Though "begging the question" and "circular reasoning" are often used interchangeably, some textbooks maintain that this is not quite correct in the strictest sense. On this view there is the following difference between them: Circular Reasoning is the basing of two conclusions each upon the other (possibly with one or more intermediate steps). That is, if you follow a chain of arguments, the conclusion of some argument is used as a premise in one of the earlier arguments that eventually led to that conclusion. Begging the question can occur within one argument; on this understanding, begging the question occurs if and only if the conclusion is implicitly or explicitly a component of an immediate premise.

A version of our first example that constitutes circular reasoning in this strict sense would involve asserting both:

  a.. The Bible tells me that faith in God is a good basis for forming beliefs
  b.. In general, what the Bible says is true
  c.. Therefore, faith in God is a good basis for belief
and

  a.. Faith in God is a good basis for forming beliefs
  b.. My faith in God tells me that, in general, what the Bible says is true
  c.. Therefore, in general, what the Bible says is true.

[edit] Modern usage
More recently, "begs the question" has been used as a synonym for "invites the question" or "raises the question", or to indicate that "the question really ought to be addressed". In this usage, "the question" is stated in the next phrase. For example: "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" This usage is often sharply criticized by proponents of the traditional meaning, but it has nonetheless come into common use as a result of its use in the media, especially by people unaware of its original use. Argument over whether this usage should be considered incorrect is an example of the debate between linguistic prescription and description.

[edit] See also
  a.. Fallacy of many questions
  b.. Fallacies of definition
  c.. Catch 22
  d.. Circular definition
  e.. Circular argument
----- Original Message ----- 
From: kerry becker 
To: nielsen at uidaho.edu ; heirdoug at netscape.net 
Cc: Vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Never argue with an atheist was Living in Idaho

I'm chiming in on this only once because it reminded me of a quote I find amusing.

   The difference between an atheist and an agnostic:

"I can well imagine an atheist's last words: "White, white! L-L-Love! My God!"-and the deathbed leap of faith. Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try to explain the warm light bathing him by saying, "Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain," and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.

-Life of Pi

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From:  Ralph Nielsen <nielsen at uidaho.edu>
  To:  heirdoug at netscape.net
  CC:  Vision2020 at moscow.com
  Subject:  Re: [Vision2020] Living in Idaho
  Date:  Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:26:17 -0800
  >Doug,
  >
  >I can assure you that I had no theological ideas in my head when I
  >freeze-dried the parsley and the lice. I acted on my own, human
  >authority, not on some imaginary authority derived from a product of
  >human imagination. Get real, Doug.
  >
  >Ralph
  >
  >
  >On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:37 AM, heirdoug at netscape.net wrote:
  >
  > > Ralph,
  > >
  > > What absolute authority did you receive in order to pass judgement
  > > on the sprig of parsley and the poor defenceless lice?
  > >
  > > Weren't you playing God?
  > >
  > > Doug
  > >
  > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  > > ---
  > > -------
  > >
  > > "...I plucked a sprig of lice-covered parsley and poked it outside
  > > the back door for just a few seconds. When I pulled it back inside,
  > > the whole thing disintegrated into dust. Both lice and parsley had
  > > become instantly freeze-dried. "
  > >
  > > "That fixed them." Ralph
  >
  >=======================================================
  >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
  >                http://www.fsr.net
  >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  >=======================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070109/4ef77617/attachment-0001.html 