5 ms·

Begging the question is about assuming the truth of one or more premises where you may feel like that assumption shouldn't go unquestioned. Assuming the conclu

Begging the question is about assuming the truth of one or more premises where you may feel like that assumption shouldn't go unquestioned. Assuming the conclusion sounds equivalent to "non-sequitur" or just not making any argument at all.

imwm 6y ago
"Assuming the conclusion" has a clear meaning distinct from "non-sequitur." "Non-sequitur" evaluates a statement's relationship to a previous statement. "Assuming the conclusion" evaluates a statement on its own.
jcranmer 6y ago
The logical fallacy of "begging the question" is essentially "A because A" although the two propositions are usually worded in a way that obfuscates their identity. For example "opium makes you sleep because it's soporific," where "soporific" is a fancy way of saying "makes you sleep." In colloquial speech, the phrase "begging the question" is often not used to refer to the logical fallacy but rather the more literal translation of "makes you ask."
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  In that particular case, I think the traditional explanation is that opium makes you sleep because of its "dormitive virtue". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_virtue https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_virtue
- hoseja 6y ago
  I still can't quite wrap my head around how the 'correct' meaning makes sense. Who is begging what? Why?
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    The prober is begging that the proposition (question) be granted for free, without a valid proof.
  - ewzimm 6y ago
    In the traditional relationship, the student is begging the teacher. In general, the person making an argument is begging you to accept their point instead of arguing it. The question is the point of contention. If we are arguing about Windows or Linux and I say that Linux is better designed because it has a clearly superior architecture, I'm begging the question because I'm just asking you to accept it instead of supporting my argument. Also, I wonder if the misunderstanding of the term has prompted many people to start looking into formal logic. In our linked world, I could imagine people looking something like that up after they hear it's misused and finding information about a lot of related issues around logic.
    - hoseja 6y ago
      Thanks, what convoluted logic.
waterhouse 6y ago
The website says, at the top: "[phrase] is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself." Since the speaker is attempting to provide evidence for a "statement or claim", we could say that, if the argument were correct, then that "statement or claim" would be the conclusion. Therefore, we can substitute "conclusion" for "statement or claim", and get: "[phrase] is a form of logical fallacy in which a conclusion is assumed to be true without evidence other than the conclusion itself." Therefore, "assuming the conclusion" is a very appropriate name for the thing they're talking about. The "assuming the truth of one or more premises" you talk about, where those premises are different from the conclusion, seems like a different type of fallacy than what this website is talking about.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Assuming the truth of one or more premises is not a fallacy; it is just what one does in any argument. If your argument is valid (i.e., if the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow), it can still be shown to be unsound by showing that one or more of its premises are, in fact, false. And while we often hold that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it is not a formal fallacy to state an extraordinary premise without adequate justification. Whether you can get anyone to accept it is another matter. It is generally easier if you can find someone who likes your conclusion, which is how most political debate works.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Begging the question is about assuming the truth of one or more premises No, begging the question (the fallacy) is about assuming the conclusion you are attempting to support. > Assuming the conclusion sounds equivalent to "non-sequitur" or just not making any argument at all. It is very different from non-sequitur, but since it means making an argument that reduces to "P, because P", describing it as "not making an argument at all" is not wholly wrong. I actually like the common (so-called "incorrect") use a lot because: * It is distinct from the fallacy use because the fallacy is always intransitive and the common use is invariably transitive, naming the question so "begged" as the direct object; thus, it is impossible to confuse one use for the other. * The fallacy use, as noted elsewhere, is the result of a series of mistranslations and, standing on its own, is bizarre in English. * the "incorrect" use is a much more natural use of the English words which also makes the fallacy use more natural, since it is exactly equivalent to the "incorrect" use with the unstated, implicit direct object of "the question the debate was attempting to resolve". So, accepting the "incorrect" use has no conflict with the use to denote a particular fallacy and, indeed, makes that use more natural.

imwm 6y ago

"Assuming the conclusion" has a clear meaning distinct from "non-sequitur." "Non-sequitur" evaluates a statement's relationship to a previous statement. "Assuming the conclusion" evaluates a statement on its own.

jcranmer 6y ago

The logical fallacy of "begging the question" is essentially "A because A" although the two propositions are usually worded in a way that obfuscates their identity. For example "opium makes you sleep because it's soporific," where "soporific" is a fancy way of saying "makes you sleep." In colloquial speech, the phrase "begging the question" is often not used to refer to the logical fallacy but rather the more literal translation of "makes you ask."

thaumasiotes 6y ago
In that particular case, I think the traditional explanation is that opium makes you sleep because of its "dormitive virtue". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_virtue https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_virtue
hoseja 6y ago
I still can't quite wrap my head around how the 'correct' meaning makes sense. Who is begging what? Why?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  The prober is begging that the proposition (question) be granted for free, without a valid proof.
- ewzimm 6y ago
  In the traditional relationship, the student is begging the teacher. In general, the person making an argument is begging you to accept their point instead of arguing it. The question is the point of contention. If we are arguing about Windows or Linux and I say that Linux is better designed because it has a clearly superior architecture, I'm begging the question because I'm just asking you to accept it instead of supporting my argument. Also, I wonder if the misunderstanding of the term has prompted many people to start looking into formal logic. In our linked world, I could imagine people looking something like that up after they hear it's misused and finding information about a lot of related issues around logic.
  - hoseja 6y ago
    Thanks, what convoluted logic.

waterhouse 6y ago

The website says, at the top: "[phrase] is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself." Since the speaker is attempting to provide evidence for a "statement or claim", we could say that, if the argument were correct, then that "statement or claim" would be the conclusion. Therefore, we can substitute "conclusion" for "statement or claim", and get: "[phrase] is a form of logical fallacy in which a conclusion is assumed to be true without evidence other than the conclusion itself." Therefore, "assuming the conclusion" is a very appropriate name for the thing they're talking about. The "assuming the truth of one or more premises" you talk about, where those premises are different from the conclusion, seems like a different type of fallacy than what this website is talking about.

mannykannot 6y ago
Assuming the truth of one or more premises is not a fallacy; it is just what one does in any argument. If your argument is valid (i.e., if the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow), it can still be shown to be unsound by showing that one or more of its premises are, in fact, false. And while we often hold that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it is not a formal fallacy to state an extraordinary premise without adequate justification. Whether you can get anyone to accept it is another matter. It is generally easier if you can find someone who likes your conclusion, which is how most political debate works.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Begging the question is about assuming the truth of one or more premises No, begging the question (the fallacy) is about assuming the conclusion you are attempting to support. > Assuming the conclusion sounds equivalent to "non-sequitur" or just not making any argument at all. It is very different from non-sequitur, but since it means making an argument that reduces to "P, because P", describing it as "not making an argument at all" is not wholly wrong. I actually like the common (so-called "incorrect") use a lot because: * It is distinct from the fallacy use because the fallacy is always intransitive and the common use is invariably transitive, naming the question so "begged" as the direct object; thus, it is impossible to confuse one use for the other. * The fallacy use, as noted elsewhere, is the result of a series of mistranslations and, standing on its own, is bizarre in English. * the "incorrect" use is a much more natural use of the English words which also makes the fallacy use more natural, since it is exactly equivalent to the "incorrect" use with the unstated, implicit direct object of "the question the debate was attempting to resolve". So, accepting the "incorrect" use has no conflict with the use to denote a particular fallacy and, indeed, makes that use more natural.