Bronze-level articleBegging the question

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(I'll have you know I really like this quote.)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bronze}}{{logicnav}}
+
{{bronze}}
 +
{{logicnav}}
 +
{{Cquote|Assume [[libertarianism]] works.|||Libertarian}}
 
'''Begging the question''' or assuming the answer is a [[logical fallacy]] that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion wasn't already assumed to be true.<ref>[http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html Skeptic's Dictionary - Begging the question]</ref>  
 
'''Begging the question''' or assuming the answer is a [[logical fallacy]] that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion wasn't already assumed to be true.<ref>[http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html Skeptic's Dictionary - Begging the question]</ref>  
  

Revision as of 19:06, 9 January 2012


Part of the series on

Logic and rhetoric

Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic
Assume libertarianism works.
—Libertarian

Begging the question or assuming the answer is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument; i.e., the premises would not work if the conclusion wasn't already assumed to be true.[1]

It is often called circular reasoning, although sometimes it's considered distinct with the distinction that circular reasoning is:

A implies B which implies A

Begging the question similarly takes the form:

A implies B and A is only valid because B is assumed.

Circular reasoning is fallacious because reasoning and justification must start with the known and then determine the unknown - in the case of circular reasoning, it starts with the known and ends up with the equally known, thus it proves nothing.[2]

Contents

Examples

Example 1:

  • We shall prove that God exists.
  1. The order and magnificence of the world is evidence of God's Creation.
  2. Therefore, we know that God exists.

Here, it is assumed that God exists in order to satisfy the premise that "God's Creation" is evidence of his existence. There is no standalone argument here that connects existence to God's creation except the conclusion, which is that God exists. Note the slight structural differences in the argument to simple circular reasoning - the order of the world isn't implied by God's existence, but trying to use it as evidence of God's existence must assume he exists in the first place.

Example 2:

  • We shall justify making abortion illegal.
  1. Abortion is unjust murder.
  2. Murder is illegal.
  3. Therefore abortion should be made illegal, since it is murder.

In this case, the conclusion (that abortion should be illegal because it is murder) is assumed to be true in order to compare it to murder in the first point. Essentially, the initial premise comparing abortion to murder remains unproved without any additional evidence.

Example 3:

A common example of circular reasoning.

More God stuff now. This one is so mind-blowingly circular that you'd think it was a straw man. However, most Biblical literalists use the Bible as their main proof of God, and using the Bible as any form of evidence for God must assume the following circular argument.

  1. The Bible tells us that it is the word of God.
  2. The word of God is infallible.
  3. Therefore the Bible is infallible.
  4. And as such, the Bible must be the word of God.
  5. The word of God is infallible.
  6. Therefore the Bible is infallible.
  7. And...
[3]

Admittedly, more advanced theologians - well, anyone smart enough to use the word "theologian" - aren't this stupid and some creationists and literalists do try to prove the Bible though other means. However, this usually tends towards hilarity rather than good scholarship. In a variant used by Jason Lisle - out of all creationists, a man who certainly should know better - states the same thing as 1) If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful. 2) Logic is meaningful. and then finally 3) Therefore, the Bible is true. Sure, premise no.1 comes directly from Lisle's special place, but it also assumes that not only is there a connection between logic and the Bible's truthiness, it must assume the Bible is infallibly true to make such a connection in the first place. Remarkably, those premises as stated aren't paraphrased at all. Of course, this isn't the only example of extreme circularity in Lisle's work (and he's only one of a number of creationists). In his proposed anisotropic synchrony convention (a shamelessly plagiarised attempt to circumvent the starlight problem) the actual content of the science becomes meaningless as his underlying reasoning is that the Earth is 6000 years old because his convention says it is, and the usual speed of light conventions cannot possibly be right because they say the world is older than 6000 years. Most Flood geology works along similar lines. It first assumes the Earth is 6000 years old in order to reject all established geology, biology and physics, and then uses new conventions to show that the Earth must be 6000 years old, thus simultaneously validating both their beliefs and methodology.

Confusion with term

Warning: Pedantry Alert

Many people use the expression "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" - in the sense that they believe an important point is being overlooked in the argument given. For example; "If God created the universe, this begs the question of who created God." In this case, "raises the question" is the more traditional term to use. There are countless of examples of this use, meaning it is not incorrect because people know what it means. Therefore pointing it out is best handled by professional and qualified pedants only. The original meaning of begging the question comes from a bad translation of petito principii, literally a request (or beg) for the premise, which explains this problem.

See also

Footnotes

  1. Skeptic's Dictionary - Begging the question
  2. What Is Circular Reasoning? (PDF)
  3. God proven in 30 seconds.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support