<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<H1 class=firstHeading>Begging the question</H1>
<DIV id=bodyContent>
<H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3>
<DIV id=contentSub></DIV>
<P><B>Begging the question</B> in <A title=Logic
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic">logic</A>, also known as <B>circular
reasoning</B> and by the <A title=Latin
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin">Latin</A> name <I><B>petitio
principii</B></I>, is an <A title="Informal fallacy"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy">informal</A> <A
title=Fallacy href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy">fallacy</A> found in
many attempts at <A title="Logical argument"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument">logical arguments</A>. An
argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the
conclusion in some way. Such an argument is <A title=Validity
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity">valid</A> in the sense in which
logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its
conclusion.</P>
<P>Today, the phrase is also frequently seen in a <A title=""
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Modern_usage">different
usage</A> 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.</P>
<TABLE class=toc id=toc summary=Contents>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<DIV id=toctitle>
<H2>Contents</H2></DIV>
<UL>
<LI class=toclevel-1><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#History"><SPAN
class=tocnumber>1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>History</SPAN></A></LI>
<LI class=toclevel-1><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Examples"><SPAN
class=tocnumber>2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Examples</SPAN></A>
<UL>
<LI class=toclevel-2><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Variations"><SPAN
class=tocnumber>2.1</SPAN> <SPAN
class=toctext>Variations</SPAN></A></LI></UL></LI>
<LI class=toclevel-1><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Related_fallacies"><SPAN
class=tocnumber>3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Related
fallacies</SPAN></A></LI>
<LI class=toclevel-1><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Modern_usage"><SPAN
class=tocnumber>4</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Modern
usage</SPAN></A></LI>
<LI class=toclevel-1><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#See_also"><SPAN
class=tocnumber>5</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>See also</SPAN></A></LI>
<LI class=toclevel-1><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#References"><SPAN
class=tocnumber>6</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>References</SPAN></A></LI>
<LI class=toclevel-1><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#External_links"><SPAN
class=tocnumber>7</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>External
links</SPAN></A></LI></UL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>
//<![CDATA[
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }
//]]>
</SCRIPT>
<A id=History name=History></A></P>
<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[<A title="Edit section: History"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begging_the_question&action=edit&section=1">edit</A>]</SPAN>
<SPAN class=mw-headline>History</SPAN></H2>
<P>The term was translated into <A title="English language"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language">English</A> from the <A
title=Latin href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin">Latin</A> in the <A
title="16th century" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century">16th
century</A>. The Latin version, <I>Petitio Principii</I> (<I>petitio</I>:
petition, request; <I>principii</I>, genitive of <I>principium</I>: 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.</P>
<P>The Latin phrase comes from the Greek <I>en archei aiteisthai</I> in
Aristotle's Prior Analytics II xvi:</P>
<DL>
<DD>"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."</DD></DL>
<P>Fowler's Deductive Logic (1887) argues that the Latin origin is more properly
<I>Petitio Quæsiti</I> which is literally "begging the question" as opposed to
"petitioning the premise".</P>
<P><A id=Examples name=Examples></A></P>
<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[<A title="Edit section: Examples"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begging_the_question&action=edit&section=2">edit</A>]</SPAN>
<SPAN class=mw-headline>Examples</SPAN></H2>
<P>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.</P>
<P>It is important to note that such arguments are logically <A title=Validity
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity">valid</A>. That is, the <A
title=Conclusion href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion">conclusion</A>
does in fact follow from the <A title="Premise (argument)"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise_(argument)">premises</A>, 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 <A
title="Material fallacy"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_fallacy">Material fallacy</A> rather
than a <A title="Logical fallacy"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy">Logical fallacy</A> by <A
title=Aristotle href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle">Aristotle</A>, and
similarly, is classified as an <A title="Informal fallacy"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy">informal fallacy</A>
today.</P>
<P>Formally speaking, the simplest form of begging the question follows the
following structure. For some proposition <I>p</I>:</P>
<UL>
<LI><I>p</I> implies <I>p</I></LI>
<LI>suppose <I>p</I></LI>
<LI>therefore, <I>p</I>.</LI></UL>
<P>However, the following structure is more common:</P>
<UL>
<LI><I>p</I> implies <I>q</I></LI>
<LI><I>q</I> implies <I>r</I></LI>
<LI><I>r</I> implies <I>p</I></LI>
<LI>suppose <I>p</I></LI>
<LI>therefore, <I>q</I></LI>
<LI>therefore, <I>r</I></LI>
<LI>therefore, <I>p</I>.</LI></UL>
<P>The <A title=Syntax href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax">syntactic</A>
presentation of the fallacy is rarely this transparent, as is shown for example
in the above argument purportedly proving God's existence.</P>
<P><A id=Variations name=Variations></A></P>
<H3><SPAN class=editsection>[<A title="Edit section: Variations"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begging_the_question&action=edit&section=3">edit</A>]</SPAN>
<SPAN class=mw-headline>Variations</SPAN></H3>
<P>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.</P>
<P><A title="Fowler's Modern English Usage"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler's_Modern_English_Usage">Fowler's
Modern English Usage</A> 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 <A
title="Fallacy of many questions"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions">Fallacy of many
questions</A>.</P>
<P><A id=Related_fallacies name=Related_fallacies></A></P>
<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[<A title="Edit section: Related fallacies"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begging_the_question&action=edit&section=4">edit</A>]</SPAN>
<SPAN class=mw-headline>Related fallacies</SPAN></H2>
<P>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.</P>
<P>A version of our first example that constitutes circular reasoning in this
strict sense would involve asserting <B>both</B>:</P>
<UL>
<LI>The Bible tells me that faith in God is a good basis for forming
beliefs</LI>
<LI>In general, what the Bible says is true</LI>
<LI>Therefore, faith in God is a good basis for belief</LI></UL>
<P>and</P>
<UL>
<LI>Faith in God is a good basis for forming beliefs</LI>
<LI>My faith in God tells me that, in general, what the Bible says is
true</LI>
<LI>Therefore, in general, what the Bible says is true.</LI></UL>
<P><A id=Modern_usage name=Modern_usage></A></P>
<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[<A title="Edit section: Modern usage"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begging_the_question&action=edit&section=5">edit</A>]</SPAN>
<SPAN class=mw-headline>Modern usage</SPAN></H2>
<P>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 <A title="Budget deficit"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_deficit">budget deficit</A> 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 <A title="Mass media"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media">media</A>, 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 <A
title="Prescription and description"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_and_description">prescription
and description</A>.</P>
<P><A id=See_also name=See_also></A></P>
<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[<A title="Edit section: See also"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begging_the_question&action=edit&section=6">edit</A>]</SPAN>
<SPAN class=mw-headline>See also</SPAN></H2>
<UL>
<LI><A title="Fallacy of many questions"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions">Fallacy of many
questions</A></LI>
<LI><A title="Fallacies of definition"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition">Fallacies of
definition</A></LI>
<LI><A title="Catch 22 (logic)"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_22_(logic)">Catch 22</A></LI>
<LI><A title="Circular definition"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition">Circular
definition</A></LI>
<LI><A title="Circular argument"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_argument">Circular
argument</A></LI></UL></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=kerrybecker6924@hotmail.com
href="mailto:kerrybecker6924@hotmail.com">kerry becker</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=nielsen@uidaho.edu
href="mailto:nielsen@uidaho.edu">nielsen@uidaho.edu</A> ; <A
title=heirdoug@netscape.net
href="mailto:heirdoug@netscape.net">heirdoug@netscape.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=Vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:37 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Never argue with an atheist was Living in
Idaho</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><BR><BR></P>
<DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>
<P>I'm chiming in on this only once because it reminded me of a quote I find
amusing.</P>
<P> The difference between an atheist and an agnostic:</P>
<P> </P>
<P>"I can well imagine an atheist's last words: "White, white! L-L-Love! My
God!"—and the deathbed leap <SPAN class=searchword0><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #cfffb9">of</FONT></SPAN> 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 <SPAN class=searchword0><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #cfffb9">of</FONT></SPAN> the b-b-brain," and, to the
very end, lack imagination and miss the better story.</P>
<P>-Life of Pi<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>
<DIV></DIV>From: <I>Ralph Nielsen
<nielsen@uidaho.edu></I><BR>To: <I>heirdoug@netscape.net</I><BR>CC: <I>Vision2020@moscow.com</I><BR>Subject: <I>Re:
[Vision2020] Living in Idaho</I><BR>Date: <I>Tue, 9 Jan 2007
15:26:17 -0800</I><BR>>Doug,<BR>><BR>>I can assure you that I had no
theological ideas in my head when I<BR>>freeze-dried the parsley and the
lice. I acted on my own, human<BR>>authority, not on some imaginary
authority derived from a product of<BR>>human imagination. Get real,
Doug.<BR>><BR>>Ralph<BR>><BR>><BR>>On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:37 AM,
heirdoug@netscape.net wrote:<BR>><BR>> > Ralph,<BR>> ><BR>>
> What absolute authority did you receive in order to pass
judgement<BR>> > on the sprig of parsley and the poor defenceless
lice?<BR>> ><BR>> > Weren't you playing God?<BR>> ><BR>>
> Doug<BR>> ><BR>> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
> ---<BR>> > -------<BR>> ><BR>> > "...I plucked a sprig
of lice-covered parsley and poked it outside<BR>> > the back door for
just a few seconds. When I pulled it back inside,<BR>> > the whole thing
disintegrated into dust. Both lice and parsley had<BR>> > become
instantly freeze-dried. "<BR>> ><BR>> > "That fixed them."
Ralph<BR>><BR>>=======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since
1994.<BR>> http://www.fsr.net<BR>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>=======================================================<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV><BR
clear=all>
<HR>
<A href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2734??PS=47575" target=_top>Get FREE Web site
and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BODY></HTML>