Talk:Begging the question/Archive 2

Proposed New Example

May I propose the following, I will look for consensus before editing the main page.

Person 1: The British Empire is the most successful ever know to mankind. Person 2: What has made it so successful? Person 1: Why, it's success of course.

I think the strength of this example is its simplicity for a multilingual audience for whom I would posit may not be necessarily familiar with the synonymity of 'soporific' and 'sleepiness'. The weakness of this example is of course that of its simplicity and I will admit that modern presentations of this logical fallacy would normally (hopefully) be more complex but I think its historical context compensates for this. Please give your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinkella (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Begging the Question Fallacy Example is Incorrect

As an example of a "Begging the Question" Fallacy, a prior example was presented that was actually a different form of argument:

Them: This holy book says that God exists. Me: But what makes you think that everything in the holy book is true? Them: Well, it's the word of God. Me: How do you know that? Them: It says so right here in the holy book.

This is actually a Circular Argument, rather than what is claimed. Aristotle's definition as well as the commentaries given in this Wiki state that the difference between these two fallacies is that in the Begging the Question Fallacy, the antecedent and the conclusion are "convertible" or in otherwords, purport the same truth value.

The fallacy of "Circular Reasoning" does this in multiple steps, (in a syllogistic form). Begging the Question does this in a single step.

Also, the stated argument given as an example is a misscharacterization of theist belief (strawman), and a hasty generalization at best. Therefore, I have updated the wiki with a more accurate example of a Begging the Question fallacy in its place. Also, I am not convinced that this is the place for "theological debate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elikakohen (talk • contribs) 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A regular users opinion: Why can't this article be a place for "theological" debate (a perfect ground to prove the results of thousands of years of logical science) and yet be a perfect place for defending death penalty? Despite the common mistakes in the suggested examples, more general and less problematic examples should have been considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.144.137 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary/popular usage

In contemporary usage, "begging the question" often refers to an argument where the premises are as questionable as the conclusion.
In popular usage, "begging the question" is often used to mean that a statement invites another obvious question.

Is there really a difference between contemporary and popular usage?--Darknus823 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The way you've used the phrase below is the popular usage, but not the original meaning. Also new talk page content & sections should always be added at the bottom of the page, not the top. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

'Contemporary usage' is more in line with 'popular usage' than it is with 'original meaning'. DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH. -The Truth Fairy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.100.203 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll maintain academic rigor here on Wikipedia buy using cited material, staying away from our own points of view, and keeping articles in line with standards of refereed publications. Because something is popular or common in our own opinion does not mean it has a place in an academic publication such as this. Please sign your edits. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 18:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinions presented as absolutes

In popular usage, "begging the question" is often used to mean that a statement invites another obvious question. This usage is disparaged.

The sentence "This usage is disparaged." is worded as if it is a universal fact, but it is merely an opinion. Even the opinion of the Oxford English Dictionary is an opinion and should not be stated as a fact. Doesn't this sentence beg the question as to who disparaged such usage? (It certainly isn't me.)--Darknus823 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Replace the Paul example please

This whole Paul example is bad. "If Paul believes what he says, then Paul is not lying". This isn't an example of begging the question, but rather a non-sequitur because believing what you are saying does NOT mean you are telling the truth. For example, if I believe that I am Napoleon and I tell you that I am Napoleon, that doesn't mean that I have told the truth, because I am obviously not Napoleon. So, a person can believe what they say and still lie. In fact, this is an ability you might look for in a spy since he can convince himself that he was not committing acts of espionage if he gets captured.

Rocketman768 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Paul example is poor but for different reasons from the ones Rocketman768 offers. Believing what you are saying and telling the truth, in so much as you know it, are the same. The problem is that the example juxtaposes factual truth with perceived truth. Very few people would say that someone who was saying something they thought was true was lying, even if the statement were factually incorrect, and the example in question uses the term "lying."

The weakness then of the example is that belief in what one is saying and "not lying" are different things. "Not lying" is not deliberately uttering something that the speaker knows or believes to be true. However, because belief is something that can be determined factually, by examination of a speakers previous comments, for example, it is not directly tautalogious to suggest that one's belief in the truth of an issue is evidentiary regarding their honesty. If I'm not much mistaken, belief in an idea or statement exists as a legal evidentiary standard regarding perjury and other testimony.

A more direct tautology would be the statement, "If Paul is being honest about what he says, then Paul is not lying." Although I do not have one off the top of my head, I suspect a better tautology could be found.

Clintbrooks10 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "lying" and "being wrong". Lying means knowingly not telling the truth. If someone says something that isn't true, they could be lying or they might just not know the truth. If you believe you are Napoleon and you tell me that you are Napoleon, then you are an honest but deeply misinformed man. If you instead tell me that you're Churchill, then you're a liar.--JB Gnome (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here" "I think she's unattractive because she is ugly." is begging the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the Phrase...

These worlds still have the ability to retain their original meaning. You understand "Begs the question," just as well as, "demands the inquiry." The usage itself is not wrong. It may alway make someone sound uneducated as it is often used in an argument abusively; however, the words still retain their original meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.135 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Vicious Circle

I believe that a vicious circle is NOT begging the question...vicious circles are when something leads to another and so on until its a complete circle, each time worsening the effect. 69.141.165.175 23:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Wikiwikiwakoo

I am going to have to disagree with you there Wikiwikiwakoo. At least in philosophy departments (where fallacy and logic courses are taught), a vicious circle is just when you beg the question. There need not be any worsening of the effect. - Atfyfe 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? Do you have any citations to support that? I mean, it's certainly likely someone somewhere has used the phrase in this way but it's not the normal English idiom 87.127.95.194 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Circular Logic or Reasoning

I was forwarded to "Begging the question" from "Circular logic." "Begging the question" is an example of "Circular logic" and not vice versa. Therefore "Circular logic" should be the top level reference since it states the reasoning that the "Begging the question" author is trying to make in regard to rhetoric. There is ALSO an aspect of "Begging the question" that is NOT rhetoric and therefore to act like "Circular logic" refers to "Begging the question" is inaccurate. How do we go about "unforwarding" Circular_logic and enabling its own entry? Also, "Circular argument" would be a SUBSET of "Circular logic."

Circular logic is a logical error caused by first making some assumption that can't be or hasn't yet been proven true, then, on the basis of that assumption deriving some result that is then used to prove that the first assumption is true.

or

Circular Reasoning is a use of reason in which the premise depends upon or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called [circular logic] -- ref: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circular%20reasoning

-- PiPhD 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The varieties of Circular Reasoning include Begging the Question, but are not limited to it. Either there should be a Circular Reasoning article with a short section about Begging the Question, or there should separate articles for each. -- fosley 131.50.151.8 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah

In see also it references the page "circular argument" which redirects back to begging the question O_o

citation

How would you go about citing the source of basic logic? While you could cite the history and human development of the idea, and commentary on it, the logic itself is a priori. I will see if I can round up a few sources, and then remove the tag. Jerimee 03:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Any logic textbook would do. Aroundthewayboy 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

switching to examples that meet NPOV?

Using statements related to a religion as examples of a fallacy seems rather needlessly offensive, no matter how standard the example may be.

How about "A fossil of organism C is an evolutionary descendant of a fossil of organism A, therefore there is a missing link organism B". Evolutionary descent presupposes the missing link, and the missing link presupposes evolutionary descent.

It's true that the theory of evolutionary descent presupposes the missing link, but the missing like doesn't presuppose anything because it's an inanimate object. This isn't an example of begging the question. The logical structure is simply "If C is descended from A, and the theory of evolutionary descent is true, it follows that there must be a missing link B"; there's no circularity. Cadr 12:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My favorite scientific example of circular reasoning is the dating of fossils and geologic strata. A certain strata of sedimentary rock is dated by the fossils that strata contains. However, the fossils themselves are dated by the strata in which they are found. This is actually a very good example of circular reasoning. The implication is that we really have no idea how old these things are. The implication, looked at from a purely logical standpoint, is probably true considering we use each, separately, to date the other one. Interesting. I would assume most people either simply overlook it or choose to ignore it. Traumatic (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this example: the way you state it, the reasoning it is clearly circular. In reality, it isn't, because the same strata (often with different fossils) appear in many different places, and we have many other clues to the relative and absolute age of fossils and strata, so knowing which stratum a particular find is in does give us a lot of information. Rp (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha. That's the ticket. Wikipedia is not censored to keep from offending religious sensibilities. IvoShandor 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

True but I think it is a point worth making that there is an over-abundant representation of examples of this fallacy purportedly used by religious people in support of a pro-religious position. That stood out to me quite strongly in the article and the implication being subtly given is that religious people are more likely to make such fallacious statements in support of their view compared to the anti-religious in support of theirs (whether or not this is the case in practice is POV and irrelevant to the article). I do not believe Wikipedia should be censored to protect religious sensibilities but perhaps a NPOV would be more served by a providing a more varied set of examples not involving religion or perhaps an example of an anti-religious person using a petitio principii argument to support an anti-religious position? (not looking for a argument supporting or decrying religion/non-religion here). 62.31.116.126 16:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I sort of expected conversational examples under the "Examples" header. I don't see any examples of the English phrase, "begging the question". 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be censored, but it should at least be consistent. On other articles for logical fallacies, neutral, non-religious examples are given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.116.173 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Contested?

Precisely how can the use of a phrase or word be contested? It's either used or not used, right? It's not as if there are some language police going around labeling improper use. I don't think this information is relevant at all. Just my opinion. IvoShandor 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people contest whether it is a correct usage. There is a link cited in the article. It is simply a fact that it is contested, and an important fact about the phrase that deserves more emphasis than it gets in the current article. This isn't a prescriptive/descriptive issue. Descriptive linguistics doesn't mean you ignore whether a usage is considered acceptable in certain settings. The Wikipedia article on prescription says:

"a descriptive linguist working in English would describe the word ain't in terms of usage, distribution, and history, observing both the growth in its popularity but also the resistance to it in some parts of the language community."

Virtually the same thing can be said here. The "modern usage" has grown in popularity in recent years, but it is still considered wrong by many. If you say it in a room full of pedants or logicians you will be laughed at. If the article omits this information it is neither prescribing nor describing, it is just ignoring what is arguably the most salient fact about the article's topic.

In line with this reasoning, I have added a sentence under the "Modern usage" heading noting the dispute about the new usage's status. (I'm the anonymous edit.) I have also changed the section heading to "Contested modern usage." I don't think this should be controversial. The introduction mentions that the usage is contested. Anything that deserves mention in the introduction deserves at least a sentence in the body, right?Lhuman 21:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the various opinions, and finding *several* cites in idiomatic dictionaries for 'invites the question', I'm not comfortable with the 3rd paragraph's 'incorrectly': '...phrase is often incorrectly used to mean "suggests the question"'.

Along that same line, this idiomatic use seems free to have *nothing* to do with the fallacy of many questions. I can say something that invites a single obvious question without it triggering a logical fallacy. For example, a slashdot story that brought me here used 'begs the question' w/r/t a security vendor spokesman saying that the existence of encrypted was evidence of wrongdoing. The article continued: "That begs the question: if one cloaks data by encrypting it, exactly what incriminating evidence does that provide?" See, not much in the way a fallacy of many questions. 24.116.168.239 03:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There may not be a language police, but there has to be an agreement on definitions for words. In order to communicate, humans have created signs that represent concepts. These signs are words. Said humans have to agree by convention on the meanings of words. If they don't agree, they can't communicate their concepts with to other. Everyone would be speaking as in secret codes that are undecipherable. When the phrase "beg the question" was created, it was agreed that it would mean "assume what is to be proved." If, through carelessness or ignorance, it is used to designate other concepts, then it will be violating the original conventional agreement. If such violations are allowed, in general, then communication will be difficult and will result in misunderstandings.Lestrade 15:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Agreement is based on whichever meanings are currently accepted. Your snobbery and completely ill-informed grasp of the concept of language is really annoying. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But surely "beg" has always meant "to ask earnestly or humbly" (Chambers)? The modern colloquial usage of begging the question is simply a somewhat literal reading of the phrase. I.e. A statement is so clearly flawed or it's consequences are so anomalous that it demands some one "ask earnestly or humbly" a socratic question to bring out that flaw or anomaly. Does a phrase having a long-standing meaning at odds with it's literal meaning make the literal meaning wrong? What then is the best most most elegant way to say (as one frequently needs to) "but the obvious concomitant to what you are saying is "X" -- is "X" really right?". Some how "raises the question" is a much weaker (and literally less accurate) way to express this sentiment. (BTW why did we have to bring "Beget" into it?) 207.45.253.32 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If a person misuses a phrase he's heard without understanding what it means, it isn't "snobbery" to point out that he's incorrect. Neither is it "snobbery" to point out that a hundred people are emulating his mistake. Please refrain from personal attacks. 216.52.69.217 17:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is snobbery to assume, when millions use a phrase in a different way than you understand it, that what they are saying is somehow "wrong". Word meanings change all the time. (What's even worse was that diatribe on the meaning of language--that bit starting with "In order to communicate, humans have created signs that represent concepts. These signs are words." You don't think that was some of the snobbiest stuff you've ever read? Oh wait, of course not; wasn't it you who wrote that?) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, no, it wasn't. But it's charming how you pile assuming bad faith on top of your personal attacks. 216.52.69.217 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry then. See, that comment that I had left (the "snobbery" one) was up there for a month and a half, and then suddenly within 32 minutes both Lestrade and an anonymous author replied to it. I suppose you'll claim coincidence. I highly doubted that. Perhaps you and he just happened to see it at virtually the exact same time (one of the biggest givaways to sock puppetry). If that happens to be the case and, astonishingly enough, Lestrade has no connection with you, then I apologize. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Matt Yeager:

In my circle of acquaintances, it is currently accepted that snobbery means the same as understated, ill–informed means knowledgeable, and annoying means instructive. As you know, the concept of language contains the notion that language incessantly develops and changes in accordance with the needs of those who use it. As a result, your posting is understood as follows:

Agreement is based on whichever meanings are currently accepted. Your understated and completely knowledgeable grasp of the concept of language is really instructive.

Lestrade 18:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Hmm, if only it were possible for you to show by using verifiable sources that what you said was true, and that it wasn't the result of your own original research! Then you might be comparing apples to apples. But you're not. There are countless uses, as I'm sure you're aware, of "begging the question" to mean "suggesting the question". (I could source them if you'd like, but I assume you're aware of the situation.) That's the difference. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice trick there moving from requiring of Lestrade "sources", but for yourself merely requiring widespread "uses". Can you find one reputable source that defines "begging the question" the way you want it to mean? one that doesn't simultaneously point out that such usage is incorrect? Charles (Kznf) 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a perfectly fair thing for you to ask me. It took less than a minute to find this page which quotes the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms, which I hope you would consider "reputable". (Look under the second listing for "beg the question", under the horizontal line.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase now has two meanings. In logic we say you beg the question when you assume your conclusion (or a consequence of your conclusion) to make an argument for your conclusion. In ordinary conversation, however, people often say "which begs the question..." when some issue raises a question. - Atfyfe 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality of Entry has declined substantially

Please review this earlier revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begging_the_question&oldid=13373446

Many change to the article have been made since then, some of which do not read very smoothly in my opinion. Before going further though, I'd like to hear some feedback from other people comparing the article now versus two years ago. --71.156.64.23 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above user. The earlier article is much better... I came here looking for a definition of "beg the question" and the earlier article makes a much more clear explanation. Especially the examples... I actually suspect the current article has been subject to some rather sophisticated pranking... come on, a technical logic circuit situation concerning a "bistable multivibrator" is used as the only example of this common phrase??? Someone has been having some fun.

I am not an expert in this subject, but please, someone revert to the earlier version and work from there. StrangeAttractor 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article so that their is a reliable source for the definition of begging the question. I also slightly modified the first defintion of it given and provided an extended using a quote from the book I used as a source. Please tell me if what I did makes the reading even more akward. Thanks.Sikvod00 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I just rewrote the section Traditional usage since the wording was unclear and confusing and the example didn't make any sense; I also added examples from the Dutch version and some explanation, so please revise. But much of this can be remedied by reverting to the prior version quoted above, which is indeed much clearer. Furthermore, the distinction between traditional and contemporary use that the article makes today is incorrect, if I read the translated Aristotle and a comment by Hintikka correctly. Rp (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Proof by contradiction

Note that if the logical process of petitio principii is followed through and results in a contradiction, then this is a valid disproof of the premise(s), see proof by contradiction. Worth mentioning? Robin S 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mims song

Fly is a slang term for a lot more than "good". Fly implies "hip", "cool", "good looking", and many additional things. So I think this is a poor example of circular reasoning.

163.181.251.10 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)mm

A Way Out

How can the current trend toward misusing this phrase be accepted? Some people stubbornly claim that the original and correct meaning is "to assume what you are trying to prove." Meanwhile, everyone in the media is using it to mean "raise the question." The media are very powerful due to the tendency of humans to imitate what they see and hear. Eventually, everyone will use the phrase to mean "raise the question" and very few will use it to mean "assume what you are trying to prove." Therefore, the solution to the problem is to label the original and correct meaning as archaic. In that way, it will be considered to be antiquated, old–fashioned, uncool, unhip, fuddy–duddy, pedantic, quaint, and, like, square. The new, media–driven meaning, "raise the question," will be so, you know, like, "today." Other euphemistic adjectives are classic and legacy. They might be preferred to archaic, which could be a difficult adjective for many people.Lestrade 12:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

The original meaning is certainly not archaic, and I doubt it will be, as it is a technical term which is still often used (although not as much, perhaps, as the other meaning). At any rate, this article should be about the technical meaning because wikipedia is not a dictionary - only the technical meaning is worthy of an encyclopedia article. john k 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is commonly used *both* ways, and we should treat both as correct. - Atfyfe 06:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So the standard of correctness is common use. This is true democracy. The original and conventional meaning of a word can be incorrect if the word is commonly used to designate any other concept. How is common use measured and understood? Is it the common use by a minimum number of people? Is it the common use by people in a certain geographical area? Is it the common use by people who are in a certain social or economic class? Is it the common use by whoever is speaking on television or writing on an Internet 'blog? Dictionaries will have to be revised often in order to stay current with vague, nebulous common usage. Who will be appointed to administer the new meanings that are determined by common use? This would be the equivalent of everyone having their own language and also of talking in code. It would be the responsibility of the hearer to decode the words that are used by the speaker.Lestrade 12:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Alternatively, the contest of usage can be seen as a need by "experts" of a subject-matter (logic) to extend their jargon (i.e. discursive control) into other fields of study (linguistics). While "begging the question" is used to name a particular type of logical fallacy, the phrase itself is both syntactically and semantically correct, suggesting the contested usage is perfectly appropriate. This is quite distinct from "prescription", as there is no claim on the logician's part to linguistics expertise. Contrast the usage of "from the heart" with a strictly medical interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.118.211 (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The examples, aren't.

Please. If you're going to show examples of "begging the question" in proper use, then at least form them so that they may stand recognizably on their own.

I agree. There is only one example, and it isn't very good. Surely we can do better. john k 02:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I found the smoking example exceptionally poor. "a smoker can quit: all he needs is willpower and a desire to quit!" That isn't a logical argument. The first statement is saying a smoker can quit, and the following says how. Not an example of 'begging the question'. I mean if I said, "You can go hiking, all you need are boots and the desire!", that doesn't work at all as an example of begging the question. Guldenat 18:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the original answer to "why did the chicken cross the road" is probably one of the simplest and most widely understood examples of begging the question. 203.113.237.179 01:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We date a named geologic strata, such as Cambrian, by the fossils it contains. However, we also date the fossils by the geologic strata in which they were found. That is a famous example of circular reasoning most of us no longer notice.Traumatic (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This misunderstanding has already been refuted above, but for the benefit of anyone seeing only this instance of it - No, the absolute dating of a stratum is achieved by means such as radiometric dating which thereby also dates absolutely the fossil forms characteristic of it (and only of it). Previously, recognition of those characteristic fossils had aided the relative dating of strata, which depended on reasonable, admitted, falsifiable assumptions about both geological and evolutionary processes. If those assumptions had been mistaken, absolute dating would have thrown up contradictions and falsified them, instead it corroborated them: the reasoning is not circular, because independent confirmation has been introduced.

With their date-specificity having been repeatedly confirmed, the fossils may often be used as a quick initial 'date label' for a stratum without the more arduous radiometric tests being performed, and viewed in isolation this may appear to be circular reasoning, but in the wider context it is not. Those who, for whatever reasons, wish to question the amply tested foundations of modern geology and biology often either misunderstand, or understand but deliberately misrepresent, this point.

All this has little to do with the actual subject, which is definition of a logical expression. In the interests of avoiding further sidetracking, it might be wise to replace any potentially contentious examples with more neutral ones. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Give up

In today's climate of surrender and submission, why don't we surrender and submit to the overwhelming power of the mass media and the vast illiteracy and ignorance of the current populace? From now on, beg the question will mean raise the question. It will no longer mean assume what is to be proven, as it originally meant for those quaint, old–fashioned ancients. Let's just say that language has evolved, developed, advanced, improved, grown. The latest is the greatest. This begs the question: "Is this progress or corruption?" Lestrade 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Oh yes! Abolish the concept by changing the meaning of the phrase that named it. An improved approach to implementing Newspeak. Go, go, go! Snezzy 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If we agree with philosopher Ernest Nagel, we will conclude that beg the question means raise the question, not presuppose what is to be proved. According to him, "…an account of the historical development of a term is no substitute for an analysis of its current uses or function…." ("Psychology and the Analysis of Concepts in Use"). The history of the term does not matter as much as an understanding of the way that it is currently used. The overwhelming misuse of the term in the mass media, especially television, has resulted in an acceptance of its meaning as raise the question. Young people who will hear only this meaning from childhood will not understand the original meaning of presuppose what is to be proved. People who know the correct meaning will eventually die out and that meaning will be relegated to "that great dustheap called 'history' " (Augustine Birrell). When all of the celebrities, stars, and "cool" people are saying begs the question when they mean raises the question, then the proper and correct usage will be seen as a vestige from those dark, ancient times when English teachers and people who read books spoke their quaint, old–fashioned language. Therefore, it is futile to oppose the effect of the mass media on language in this case. This trend is abetted by the adherents of "living language" who contend that language is not fixed, but is always changing and developing (but not necessarily progressing).Lestrade 18:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I propose then that we start saying, "Employs a circular argument," every time we intend to say, "Raises the question." Why let those who want to sound pompous by using words they don't understand have all the fun? They use DISCOMFITURE when they mean DISCOMFORT. Let's start our own campaign of reverse mis-usage. See, we'll employ a circular argument [sic] about who's in charge, anyways [sic]. Sick? Yes. Sic? Glorious Monday! Dodgson rules! Snezzy 04:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother proposing it... that's the way the English-speaking world works these days. "Circular logic/reasoning/arguments" are how we tend to refer to this concept (EDIT: that is, of "begging the question") anymore. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say apart from that. Really. Genuinely. No idea. (And, as an aside, if it weren't for that truly bizarre tone he's taking on, Lestrade's comment would be completely accurate.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That begs the question, "Why not let any word mean anything that we want it to mean?" Freedom now! If we were all free to assign our own meanings to words, then everyone could say, with user Matt Yeager ♫ Matt Yeager , "I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say" and feel good about it. We should all start begging questions about the repressive authorities who prevent us from exercising our rights. Everyone should have their own meanings for words without having to feel discomfort or discomfiture.Lestrade 13:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

(unindent)Hate to say it guys, but the talk pages are for improving articles not general discussion about topics, or sarcastic comments that just prove we know more than everybody. ;) Which we obviously do. Woot.IvoShandor 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The above comments are related to the article's "Contested modern usage" section and are not a mere attempt to "prove we know more than everybody." What does "woot" mean?Lestrade 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Thing is, does he mean prove as in show to be true, or prove as in test? (And by thing, do I mean problem, or the original meaning of high council meeting?) See, words can change meaning gradually, but changing the meaning of a phrase like "begs the question" is partly a function of ignorance, and partly its poor rendition in Modern English. While "beg" had that meaning when the phrase was coined, it has lost it since. Nowadays, rather than use an obscure meaning of "beg", it would be better to say "taking the premise for granted" and stop encouraging people to use the original translation, whether correctly or incorrectly.--Rfsmit (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Television

It must be obvious to even the most obtuse and inattentive viewer that the power of television to change language and behavior is overwhelming. It is very common to hear people on television use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question." It seems to be increasing with time. This begs the question: "Why would anyone want to oppose an overwhelming power?" In return, this begs the answer: "Some people give themselves pain and aggravation by not simply succumbing to such a mighty medium." With all of this begging, we should be glad that we will not be there to see all of the future generations whose inquisitiveness will beg an infinite number of questions, to which there may be no answers.Lestrade 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

"Begging the question" is a useful term in technical discussions of logic, and it is certainly still used in that context, even if it is also used to mean "raise the question". Even by your own claims, you are only making the case that there are two correct meanings to the phrase, not that the original meaning is obsolete - it is still in quite common use in many contexts (for instance, the phrase "question-begging" is generally only used to refer to the correct/original sense). Even if both meanings are considered correct, only one - a technical term in logic - deserves an encyclopedia article. The other is simply a phrase in spoken language. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. john k 17:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Applied logic

Since language is always changing and developing (progressing), and it can be agreed that any word can mean anything, I suggest the following. A male who meets a female who has well–formed formulæ (wffs) may proposition her. In his mind, he may want a logical connective by arranging for a binary relation. A good first step is to beg the question of her name, in order to establish a friendly relationship. Logically, he may be fortunate to change the modality of the situation from possible to actual.Lestrade (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Reverted it back two years.

Abusing WP:Be_bold here, but I think the present article was so confusing we'll all be better off if we start from the article way back. Edit: Aaaaand sigging. 87.94.56.129 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I liked the fuller discussion of the previous entry. It seemed appropriate for an encyclopedia, whereas this seems like a stub.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

References

this article does not have any references. please find some. --70.74.80.112 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We now have some references, but far from adequate.

To which publication, for example, does Martin (2002), 71., refer ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fentlehan (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" is overused

TIMEZONE

My objections to this article begin here in the first paragraph:

There is controversy over the modern everyday usage of to beg the question--meaning to pose the question...

The words "the modern everyday usage" imply that this is what is currently used and that the other meaning is archaic. This is not the case in my experience. I'm in my 40s and I grew up hearing, reading, and using the expression as defined in the other sense, meaning "this assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that the issue is resolved already". It's only in the last few years that I began to notice scattered misuses of the phrase in the "this raises the question" sense, the first of these was by a foreign-born speaker of English so I just assumed that this was why.

Later in the Wiki article we have this:

Modern Controversy
More recently, to beg the question has been used as a synonym for "to raise the question", or to indicate that "the question really ought to be addressed".

Again, "More recently... ...has been used..." implies that this is the more "modern" definition. I disagree. I tried to edit this latter entry but not sure if it worked. There seems to be no link to edit the above entry, not sure why.

There's nothing amiss about including "A number of people have begun to use the phrase to mean nearly the opposite of what it has always meant." However the implication that this is the "modern" definition and that the other is just used by a few academics or archaics is simply false. It all smacks of the ID issue a little to me, the need to present any fringe POV as half of a "controversy". Some people have begun using the phrase backwards, this doesn't mean it's a controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.198.222 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody fix this

• If Paul speaks he is telling the truth.
• Paul is speaking.
• Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.

This can't be a correct example of begging the question. It reduces to:

• If A then B
• A
• -> B

A happens to equal "Paul speaks" and B = "Paul tells the truth", but speaking and telling the truth are indeed generally two entirely different things, so that doesn't matter - the point is this is a standard syllogistic form and if it suffers from begging the question then so must every syllogism. Perhaps they do by definition? I don't know - I'm not down with this stuff technically - but I somewhat doubt it. What would be the point in inventing a fallacy category and equating it to a standard (indeed, arguably the archetypal) logical form? Or perhaps begging the question means instead to simply doubt ANY premise of ANY argument? It wouldn't seem so from the gist of the rest of the article, though. I think this is probably just a bad example. Can somebody fix it? 67.193.45.166 (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)G

I just tried, but see the older version referred to above. Rp (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Example of "begging the question" v. "viciously circular"

In speaking about reliabilist theories of knowledge in his book The Price of Doubt (2001), N.M.L. Nathan uses both "begging the question" and "viciously circular" in the same paragraph. I thought having an example of these two phrases actually being used in a work of contemporary philosophy might be helpful for the authors of this article:

As numerous writers have insisted, induction itself could then be the reliable process which non-accidentally generates the true belief in the reliability of induction. From

(4) So far, most inductive arguments with true premises have had true conclusions he could infer

(5) Most inductive arguments with true premises have true conclusions.

The argument '(4), so (5)' is doubtless question-begging. Anyone who considered this argument and who was doubtful about the truth of (5) would thereby be made equally doubtful about the truth of the conditional 'If (4) then (5)'. [...] Though question-begging, '(4), so (5)' is not viciously circular in the sense that 'its conclusion is contained among its premises', or in the sense that 'a necessary condition of using it to gain knowledge of (or justified belief in) its conclusion is that one already have knowledge of (or justified belief in) its conclusion'.

- Atfyfe (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cites support calling it incorrect

From the cited Times article, "[t]o use to beg the question as a synonym for to call for the question is a mistake." Please don't revert my edit again, that messes up the citations I fixed. Ariadne55 (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't looking at that citation however that doesn't mean it's correct. The next sentence of your quote is, "Why? It's a mistake because it is in error. (That's begging the question.)" The fact that you cite this as evidence is silly as it is an example of the logical fallacy that "begging the question," describes. It has NO proper support. For a proper citation that a usage is incorrect you would need a linguist. The Rev. here is failing to consider the fact that while the phrase does have the logic related meaning, it can have two independent meanings that are both equally correct. This citation does not support that the other usage is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.135 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your revert messed up the cites I had just fixed. You could have edited the parts you disagreed with or copied the corrected cites into your edit.

The Safire article discusses the origins of the phrase and refutes the common usage argument. He spends several paragraphs explaining the correct usage and refuting the idea that frequent misuse can transform a mistake into a secondary meaning. His joke about why the misuse is wrong has the effect of repeating his primary point: that using "begs the questiong" to mean "prompts the question" is a mistake. Ariadne55 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Declaring that my words are "weasel words" isn't an argument and doesn't make them wrong. Please refrain from backhanded insults. My purpose is to make someone who comes to check this article aware of the fact that it is NOT agreed upon, like described in the last paragraph of the "World Wide Words" post.

It is quite clear that the Safire article is not definitive and is little more than his own opinion. Citing a meaning to a word is NOT an argument against other meanings. In addition, including a strawman argument that "common usage is correct because it's common usage," is improper reasoning as well.

Also see the talk section below —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.151.156 (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as providing citations is concerned, please ensure that it is not done selectively. The fact that one writer (or group) has a noted opinion about usage should be tempered by the consensus of that community (eg - what do most language experts believe). If there are divergent opinions, the prevalent and widely supported ones (based on peer-reviewed research) should be indicated in the article.

In this case, there are two different groups - one that maintains that "begging the question" used in the sense "raises a question" is incorrect, and the other that maintains that common usage indicates a shift in definition of how the phrase is used. Both are valid, and both should be represented here. Citations for both views are welcome.

If a citation is presented, it should be done in a neutral tone, though it can indicate the bias of the source. For example, this is not a neutral tone:

“ More recently, "to beg the question" has been incorrectly used by some as a synonym for "to raise the question", ”

because it implies that Wikipedia's editorial position is that the usage is incorrect, which is against NPOV guidelines. This is more acceptable:

“ Some linguists view as incorrect the usage of "to beg the question" as a synonym for "to raise the question". ”

I hope the distinction is clear. This would be followed by appropriate citations, and the alternative view of other liguists. Of course, you may modify the above to remove weasel words like "some", but the general point remains. Mindmatrix 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Individual meanings of the individual words

Regardless of the phrase these worlds still have the ability to retain their original meaning. You understand "Begs the question," just as well as, "demands the inquiry." The usage itself is not wrong. It may alway make someone sound uneducated as it is often used in an argument abusively; however, the words still retain their original meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.135 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs some major surgery; no reference to contemporary philosophic usage!

This article needs some major surgery (particularly as it has been referenced in a few recent newspaper columns). The main source of the confusion seems to be a lack of ANY reference to the contemporary philosophical usage!!! There should be a breakdown into the three usages of "begging the question":

1) The traditional aristotelian usage, now mainly obsolete (a circular argument) 2) The contemporary philosophical usage (an argument depending on a contestable premise, similar but *not identical* to the fallacy of many questions) 3) The erroneous folk-usage of simply "raising a question"

While there is reference to (1) and (3), (2) seems mostly missing from the article, although one of the reference (Skeptic dictionary) emphasises the contemporary philosophical usage of (2). In this article, the contemporary usage of QB (2) is wrongly conflated with the fallacy of many question. But "many questions" is only marginally related to QB. The description of the many questions fallacy in this article is actually an example of the contemporary usage of QB rather than of the many questions fallacy.

Also, since this article refers to a philosophical term, it needs reference to more academic discussion on this topic; for instance John Woods "Begging the Question is not a fallacy" http://www.johnwoods.ca/Begging%20the%20Question%20is%20Not%20a%20Fallacy.pdf

Anyone wishing to comment please first read the above reference (Woods).Joncolvin (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lestrade, please stop

You're adding unsourced, POV claims, and disrupting the wiki, reverting changes that have nothing to do with the point you are trying to prove while you're at it. I stress that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. It is not a platform to promote ideas of how things should be. Wipe (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Circular reasoning is an informal fallacy

I could be wrong, but I think that circular reasoning (and begging the question, since I'm not sure there is a distinction between the two) is an example of an informal fallacy, not a logical fallacy as was asserted in this article. To help illustrate my point, arguments of the form "P, therefore P" (circular arguments) are actually valid, since the conclusion is true whenever the premise(s) is true (the definition of validity.) In contrast, arguments of the form "If P then Q, Q, therefore P" are an example of a logical fallacy, since all of the premises may be true and the conclusion still false.

Bd1887 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

References

I remove the code <ref>[http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50019564?query_type=word&queryword=begging&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=70aG-OepAIa-8279&hilite=50019564 The Oxford English Dictionary]</ref> as it jumped to a subscription required page and not a page of information relevant to the article. A better link can surely be found. user:pbhj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.192.228 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Now I have a philosophy degree, that may be no claim but it seems that definition A is just definition B set in a disagreement. I can't see any other way they are different without the traditional usage being total rubbish. Does John Woods claim he uses the term differently? It's very unsettling: does paul speaking have nothing to do with paul telling the truth? If not does the fact that Paul is not lying when he speaks demonstrate that he is speaking!!! Honestly it seems so wrong that I might put it back now. !!!!!

Example?

I don't think that "Paul is not lying" example is great. Actually I can't quite get my head around it. It seems to open up (or 'beg') a bunch of other questions, like how do we define what is lying? Maybe that is the point, but if it is, I don't think that it's been put forward very well. I don't think that this example illustrates the concept very well, especially for people who may not be familiar with the phrase.

Surely the most common examples of begging the question within philosophy, & the most easy to comprehend, come from fallacious arguments regarding the existence of God - e.g. "the fact that the world exists is proof that God created it". Or conversely, "the fact that there is so much suffering in the world proves that God does not exist."

Would it be appropriate to put something like this in place of the current example? I don't feel confident doing myself as I'm no expert on the philosophical technicalities, & don't want to be guilty of putting a misleading example in. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did, but now the stated distinction between "traditional" and "contemporary" usage is completely wrong. Rp (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirection from "Circular Reasoning"

I really, really dislike it that "Circular Reasoning" and "Circular Argument" redirect here into all of this contentious mire. There is a much-simpler form of circular reasoning or circular argument that is easy to explain, and I'll just give a very terse example of this:

"A implies B; B implies C; C implies A
Therefore, A, B, and C are all true."

There is something obviously wrong with this "logic" and circular reasoning is what that is! 74.249.82.221 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also something wrong with the reasoning that "A implies B therefore A and B must be true" =P. All A implies B means is that either B or not A, since if there is no B in this case, then there is no A, because A entails B. However, having "no A" would NOT determine B. Nevertheless, "A implies B implies C implies A" would mean that if one of the variables A, B, or C is false, then A, B, and C are all false. =PKmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Circular Reasoning is Supposed to Be Simple

I thought circular reasoning was a statement like: "A is true, therefore A is true," or, "A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true."--Luke Elms 10:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathexpressions (talk • contribs)

Religion

Having read the demonstrations, I feel that the extended example given reads more like an attack on christianity than anything else. I request it be changed, to protect the NPOV. 76.115.197.217 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Christianity specifically? Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on belief in God, or on holy writings attributed to be by or about Him. It's not a critique of religion itself, just of using circular logic to assert that God's existence is a fact. Do you have a better suggestion? Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The traditional usage section has serious problems

From the article:

These statements strongly suggest logical arguments (A is true because B is true) that don't actually provide any proof, because they are circular (in each case B can only be true if A is already assumed to be true).

This analysis of circularity is questionable. By this description mathematical proofs invariably are circular.

In mathematics, if one starts with premise B, and proves A, then B can only be true if A is true. Conversely, if a case is found where A is not true, the proof automatically converts into a proof that the premises did not hold in that case. Is every mathematical proof circular?

Instances of petitio principii are formally logical, and in fact logically valid – that is, the conclusion does follow from the premise – they are tautological.

Formally speaking, the fallacy of petitio principii has the following structure (P and Q are propositions):

   1. Q only if P.
   2. P.
   3. Therefore, Q.
   4. (unspoken) P only if Q.

"Q only if P" is equivalent to "If Q, then P". Now the given structure "1. If Q, then P; 2. P; 3. Threrefore Q" is not valid - contrary to what is said a few lines earlier. Also it is not clear what role the fourth line, uspoken "4. If P, then Q" plays. In any case, this formal structure does not describe the examples well.

E.g., "I didn't steal it. I'm no thief!" - This could be rephrased as "I did not steal this time because I never steal". This could be further rephrased as "I did not steal this time because all of the following: I did not steal this time, I did not steal the previous time, I did not steal the time before that, ...

In other words, the formal structure is

 1. P1, P2, P3, ... !
 2. Therefore, P1.

Now we can describe what is wrong with saying "I didn't steal it. I'm no thief!"

A proof normally starts with something highly credible, and then procedes to show something that by itself seems less plausible. Thereby the credibility of the premise is extended to the conclusion.

It takes more faith to believe the premise "P1 and P2 and ..." than to believe the conclusion "P1", since we must additionally believe P2, P3, etc. Therefore the evidence given in support of the conclusion should be less likely to be accepted than the conclusion alone.

This happens to be exactly what the article says about "modern usage".

(However, in some actual cases this may not work like that, because the argument "I'm no thief!" may remind the audience of actual observed evidence that the subject did not steal in a number of past cases, and then one may infer that since people tend to behave consistently, he is less likely to have stolen this time.)

The example "God exists, because the Word of God tells us so." requires a different analysis:

"the Word of God" must be a name of a particular text, e.g. the Bible. Otherwise we would not be able to read it and verify that it tells us God exists. This choice of name for that text reveals an assumption about the nature of the text.

Unspoken:

 1. The Bible is written by God (or God had it written, authored it)
 2. Anything being written by God must be truthfull and reliable.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Therefore, the Bible is truthfull and reliable

The spoken part goes:

 4. The Bible says God exists (a well known fact, proven by reading, e.g., the Genesis)
 5. (Implied:) What the Bible says, is true (per 3 above).
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Therefore, God exists.

Apart from justification of statement 2, we have a problematic premise statement 1. This premise logically implies existence of God. Because this implication is so obvious and immediate, we can notice that it takes no more faith to believe

 "God exists and wrote the Bible"

than to believe

 "God wrote the Bible".

These statements are no more credible than the conclusion "God exists", since they additionally require that he wrote the Bible, something adherents of other religions may doubt. Since a proof lends no more credibility to its conclusion than the least credible of its arguments, it does not matter that e.g. statement 4 is verifiable. The least credible of the premises is less credible than the conclusion alone. This proof does not add credibility to the conclusion.

This example too fits the definition of "modern usage" of begging the question.

I am no expert, but at this point I have a suspiction: perhaps the distinction is not traditional vs modern usage, but between traditional vs modern understanding of what begging the question is.

81.237.206.192 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten much of the article..

Though it still needs a hand to appear like a complete article and not just a collection of statements about aspects of begging the question. Deleet (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Circular Question?

Could the following be considered circular logic?

Person 1

"Is no the only word you can say?"

Person 2

"No" --173.79.127.205 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with logic. --Deleet (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On Misused/used

I think it is rather prescriptivist to say the term is "misused" for other things.

It is without bias to say merely: 'used' in other ways..etc.

This fits in better with the section on it at the bottom too, I think.

Simpy (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon for the interference

I do not know use correctly the english language and this is an automatic translation. I have wanted to read the article circular reasoning and have been forwarded to this one article. Begging the question and circular reasoning (or Circular argument) aren´t equivalent terms, rather they are opposite. Aristotle gives the definition of circular argument in Analytical first II, 57b y ss [1]--Ammonio (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Example is still BAD!

When you have a tautological statement how can you even begin to talk about premises and conclusions. One is the other. The opium example is an example of that. It says "Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality". Maybe I'm missing something but the word "because" makes "it has a soporific quality" the premise and "Opium induces sleep" the conclusion; opposite to what it says in the article.

Abaharaki (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Because that's what the sources say; we're not supposed to decide if the examples are bad or good, only report. Also, I'm still working on the article and on adding sources and examples. Ricardiana (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, but if I may be so bold as to say that it is our job to choose examples that aren't clearly nonsensical. I disagree with your suggestion that we're just here to relay information. With all due respect I assure you. I understand the importance of references and citations but not at the cost of misinformation. How many people will go away from this article confused? I feel very strongly about logic and the role it plays in everyday life especially in communication and I realy dislike sub-par attempts at explaining it. Again don't construe any of my comments as derogatory. Abaharaki (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:Reliability, WP:Verifiability, and especially WP:OR, it is. Feel free to find a source that agrees with your opinions. Ricardiana (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, FYI, I have helpfully listed a number of sources in the "References" section. I am working on adding them into the article; some of them concur more or less with your views. Feel free to use them. Ricardiana (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted Abaharaki (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I found something on the usage of the word "because" (S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 3rd ed., St. Martin's, 1986)

"The reasons given in support of the conclusion are called premises. We may say, 'This is so (conclusion) because that is so (premise).' Or, 'This is so and this is so (premises), therefore that is so (conclusion).' Premises are generally preceded by such words as because, for, since, on the ground that, and the like."

My entire beef is with the words immediately following the little [4] from Welton. I'll switch that sentence around now. Abaharaki (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, read WP:OR. It states that you can't use Source A to disprove Source B unless Source A specifically mentions Source B. I'm reverting your change; please, next time, find a source that specifically disagrees re: hysteron proteron. Ricardiana (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't think that's going to happen. A quick Google Scholar search shows only 5 citations of Welton (one of them in french). I don't have access to any of them but I doubt they would relate to something this specific. As far as I can see "A Manual of Logic" is in two volumes and the only library that has it near me is missing volume 2 and I only managed to find the first volume of it digitised on the internet. I'm guessing that quote was from volume 2, correct? Abaharaki (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Welton is not the only source. I've listed a bunch of sources under references. All are available via Google Books. Ricardiana (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

translation of petitio - does not have the impact that you describe

However, petitio also means begging; as a result, the phrase "this begs the question" may incorrectly be translated as "this begs us — asks us earnestly, entreats us — to raise and consider the question."

The fact that petitio means beg (as in petition), does not mean that the usage "petitions us to consider" is a mistranslation of the word "petitio". What "petitio" is petitioning us to do is not to "raise" the statement, but to "accept" the statement.

The phrase "asks us earnestly, entreats us" is not the issue, and so the phrase does not advance the argument, and "begs the question" in the older sense. The issue is "raise", which is not to be found in the word "petitio", and so this should not be characterized as a "mistranslation of petitio" in the way that you argue, - it is the introduction of a new concept. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Note that I left in the sentence, which I think is questionable: the translation of petitio principii, which literally translates as "assuming the starting point". although your reference is not clear - can you give a better one? - and how is a "literal translation" different from a "translation" - it is not a translation letter by letter (the literal meaning of literal) - possibly word by word - but where is the translation of the word "petitio"? etc... ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Martin reference

"Matrin (2002)" is in two inline references, but it is not in the list of references. Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?

This article states that "Begging the question isn't related to the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning". Can someone tell me why circular reasoning redirects to Begging the question? This doesn't make sense to me. What am I missing? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How to observe an instance of "Begging the question":

Example #1

We test the claim that "A is a C".

The following support is offered:

1. "A is a B".
2. "B is a C".

If from only this we come to believe that "A is a C", without any proof that "A is a B" and "B is a C", then we have accepted the argument that has committed the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

Example #2

We test the claim that "B exists".

The following support is offered:

1. "A says that B exists".

Then it is argued that:

1. "B is the reason why A exists".

If from only this we come to believe that "B exists", without any proof that "B is what led to A" and that "A says that B exists", then we have accepted the argument that has committed the informal fallacy of "begging the question".

Even if these premises were true, they would not prove that B exists.

Example #3

We test the claim that "A is a B".

The following support is offered:

1. "A is a C".

The following is glossed over:

1. "B is the same thing as C".

By asserting A is a C does not prove it to be a B, eventhough is C is the same as B.

So basically two forms of begging the question exist:

1. A premise or a set of premises are connected through a deductively valid relationship through which not enough evidence for verifying the premises has been gathered to show the conclusion to be true. Yet the relationship itself is claimed to be proof of the conclusion.
2. A premise or a set of premises are connected through a deductively invalid relationship such that no combination of truth of false values of premises can establish the truth of conclusion. Yet the relationship itself is claimed to be proof of the conclusion.

Circular reasoning: An occurrence of A leads to B, and an occurrence of B leads to A. Therefore both A and B have surely occurred.

That should clear it up for you.Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 23:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit late to respond to this, but that wasn't really the point of my question. As you say, these are interrelated yet different concepts, yet circular reasoning redirects to begging the question. Why? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fallacy in the Death Penalty Example

The last sentence under the "Related fallacies" example is ironic in the sense that it is also begging the question. The sentence reads "If not, it is in fact a weaker argument than a mere assertion that the death penalty is wrong, since the first premise is stronger than the conclusion."

It states that the argument ("Therefore the death penalty is wrong") is weaker than the premise ("All intentional acts of killing human beings are morally wrong.") because the premise is stronger than the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.102.154 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not arguing for that as a conclusion, though, it's merely explaining what makes it true. 99.41.25.154 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Traditional usage

WTF? You consult the Prior Analytics and you correct the article, only you can speak "circular reasoning" to say that not to be confused with petitio principii. To do otherwise is to confuse readers.

Ah! and the petitio principii can not be a tautology. The petitio principii is not a valid argument, it isn´t argument; a tautology is an argument that is always true, it is a valid and true argument.--Ammonio (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arguing in a circle or virtuous circle or vicious circle aren´t circular argument.--Ammonio (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• An example of circular explanation such as "If A is true, then so is B. If B is true then so is A" can juxtaposed with additional information, such as: "A is false, and B is true." Such juxtaposition is not valid, and therefore, this circular explanation is NOT A TAUTOLOGY.
• The definition, "If A is true, then A is true" is infallible and is therefore TAUTOLOGICAL. Even if we juxtapose that statement with the claim, "A is false", it is still valid, for it would simply be modus tollens applied to the definition "If A is true, then A is true" (i.e. If A is not true, then A is not true").
• Petitio principii can be embedded inside an argument, even a logical one. It can also be a part of an illogical argument. Petito principii is NOT an argument any more than the statement, "A implies B." is an argument. Signed, Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the Spanish article on "circular reasoning" (translated fairly poorly, but legibly, from Spanish by Google). The article makes it clear that according to Aristotle, "circular reasoning" refers to arguments of the form: "A implies B and B implies C, so A must imply C. Taking it another way, if A implies C and C implies B, then A must imply B"- in a sense completing a circle, but in a logical and valid way, provided that the assumptions are correct to begin with.

However, that definition of "circular reasoning" seems to have fallen into disuse in English-speaking countries (though I don't know if it is still commonly used in Spanish-speaking countries). Every other internet source that I can find defines "circular reasoning" as meaning "arguing in a circle", i.e. A is true because of A, or A is true because of B, which is true because of C, which is true because of A. Many such sources use a number of texts as source material. And it is near-unanimous, if not completely unanimous, as compared with the popular misuse of "begging the question" in place of "raises the question" which is flagged up on numerous websites devoted to logical fallacies.

Whether it's technically incorrect or not, the use of "circular reasoning" to refer to arguing in a circle is logical, for the same reasons as why "circular definition" is a logical term for a definition that is circular, and it makes a good deal of sense to Joe Public who overwhelmingly recognise the term as such. If people were to look up "circular reasoning" and see Aristotle's definition given and the other (far more prevalent) one dismissed, they might get confused at the conflicting message from Wikipedia vs. other sources.

Although Aristotle came up with the 13 "logical fallacies", many others have expanded upon Aristotle's work with time, and other theoreticians on logical fallacies have used the "arguing in a circle" definition of circular reasoning. Who is to say that Aristotle's definition of circular reasoning is the only correct definition and that those who use the other definition are wrong? Also bear in mind that meanings of words and phrases often do mutate with time. For instance you don't get many instances of people being dismissed for using "ponce" to call someone an effeminate man, because the word originally meant "pimp". Tws45 (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You must haven´t search in a specialized sites. I only just find what you say in amateur sites. John Stuart Mill made a decent study of the petitio principii and he never related it to the circular reasoning or circular argument. Loock for the "A system of logic ratiocinative and inductive". Find literature and justify what you says. Wikipedia isn´t a original research.--Ammonio (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Although John Stuart Mill's book doesn't relate the petito principii to circular reasoning (which is 100% true, I've checked), to infer from this that he considers circular reasoning a separate thing would be an "argument from ignorance" fallacy, as he makes no mention of it at all through the text.

Here's some sources that give the other definition of circular argument: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A688287 http://www.numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

There are also a few books available online, e.g. "The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument" by Douglas N. Walton and "Aristotle and his philosophy" by Abraham Edel. This definition is also given by Wiktionary and the Oxford English Dictionary's entry for "circular", point 5: http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50040118?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=circular&first=1&max_to_show=10

Regarding "original research", from Wiki's "no original research" policy, given that it is directly supported by hundreds of directly relevant sources (some specialised, many amateur), it can only be original research if all of those sources are unreliable. And if they are, why? If those sources are considered unreliable because they offer an invalid definition of circular reasoning, then we're left with a somewhat ironic argument along the lines "they're unreliable because their definition is invalid, and their definition is invalid because they're unreliable".

If there are two differing opinions on a subject across both the internet and literature then it isn't consistent with one of them being right and the other being "original research". More likely, both equally warrant a mention where one is appropriate. Tws45 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote that "The petitio principii or Begging the question is studied in Prior Analytics II, 64b, 34 - 65a, 9 and it´s considerated fallacy. The circular argument, circulus in probando or circular reasoning is explained in Prior Analytics II, 57b, 18 - 59b, 1 and it´s not considerated fallacy, rather they are logic argument as Aristotle says". I was the first who said these two ways of interpreting the article. Do not accuse me of not mark the distinction. I have pointed out that sometimes it´s identified with the circular reasoning incorrectly.

Its incredible. The references that you attached say that Aristotle never said. They quote Aristotle them without having read Aristotle.

Only I say that those are different things and should not be confused.--Ammonio (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're partly missing the point. I have no arguments with the notion that the use of "circular reasoning" to refer to "arguing in a circle" should not be attributed to Aristotle, as some sources clearly do. The issue is with the idea that Aristotle's definition is the only right one, and that the other widely-used definition is invalid. One thing that clearly comes out from the various sources is that while Aristotle may have pioneered the stuff on logical fallacies, many others have expanded upon his work with time (nowadays far more fallacies are recognised than just the 13 that Aristotle gave). The Oxford English Dictionary (one of the most reliable sources out there) has a cite for "circular argument" as meaning "arguing in a circle" from as far back as 1646, so I fail to see how quoting that as a valid usage constitutes original research (as long as it isn't erroneously attributed to Aristotle). Tws45 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, I will not talk through any more. I just want to say that it isn´t honest to say: "One of the more common fallacies is circular reassoning, a form of which was called `begging the question´ by Aristotle in his book that named the fallacies of classical logic" [2].

All people are based on the same non-existent text of Aristotle. Why does everyone are based on Aristotle to justify that begging the question and circular argument is the same if Aristotle never said that?

I believe I have sufficiently justified my opinion. Thanks for your attention.--Ammonio (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Example in formal logic

I'm so sorry but reading the section and discussion I get confused which the fallacy is: $A\to A\vDash A$ or $(A\to B)\land B\vDash B$? Uzytkownik (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the two expressions are fallacies, both expressions are tautologies, ie, both expressions are fully valid arguments. The first formulation is a derivation of the law of identity; the second is conjunction elimination or Simplification--89.130.127.107 (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BTQ *against* someone

more generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.

... quoted from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.80.124.217 (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Spiral of Pointlessness

"Using the term in this way, although common, is considered incorrect by prescriptive grammarians. This usage is the result of confusion over the translation of petitio principii, which literally translates as 'assuming the starting point'. (Arguments over whether this current usage should be considered incorrect are an example of debate over linguistic prescription and description and the historical evolution of language.)"

One can only hope that these people arguing about fallacy of arguing realise the fallacy of their argument. 92.9.246.83 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)