In logic, begging the question describes a type of logical
fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in
one of the premises.[1] Stephen Barker
explains the fallacy in The Elements of Logic: "If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that
the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the
argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most cast-iron
rigor".[1] In other words, the argument fails
to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.
Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando,
vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic the first known
definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher
Aristotle around 350 B.C., in the Prior Analytics.
Outside of logic, "begs the question" is commonly used to mean "raises the question," i.e., "begs the question be
asked"—using a more common sense of the word beg, rather than the rarer sense "assume without proof" that the technical term uses.[1]
History
The term was translated into English from the Latin
in the 16th century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii (petitio: seeking,
petition, request; principii, genitive of principium: beginning, basis, premise of an argument), literally means "a
request for the beginning or premise." That is, the premise depends on the truth of the very matter in question.
The Latin phrase comes from the Greek εν αρχή αιτείσθαι (en archei
aiteisthai) in Aristotle's Prior Analytics II xvi:
- "Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) in failing to demonstrate the
required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken
syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent
by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain and is prior. Now begging the question is none
of these. [...] If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or
that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue.... [B]egging the question is proving what is not
self-evident by means of itself ... either because predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same
predicate belongs to subjects which are identical."
Fowler's Deductive Logic (1887) argues that the Latin origin is more properly Petitio Quæsiti which is literally
"begging the question" as opposed to "petitioning the premise."
A generalization, assuming a point at a(n) issue(s).
Examples
As noted by Simon Blackburn in A Dictionary of Philosophy, describing
something as "begging the question" can be problematic because such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the
premises, since it is already contained in the premises. All circular arguments have
this characteristic: the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was
classified as a material fallacy rather than a logical fallacy
by Aristotle and, similarly, is classified as an informal
fallacy today. For one person, to whom the premises obviously contain the conclusion, an argument might beg the question,
but for many people the connection may not be so apparent and thus the argument might be enlightening. Only in the case where the
premises formally contain the conclusion can a case of begging the question be definitively be said to arise.
Consider the following: X is a computer because it correctly performs mathematical
operations. To someone who knows the usual meaning of the word "computer", such an argument appears to beg the question;
however, to someone who does not understand how the word computer is usually used, it does not. Absent some formal definition of
the word "computer", whether or not the argument begs the question cannot be settled.
Variations
In a related sense, the phrase is occasionally used to mean "avoiding the question." Those who use this variation are
explaining that the argument lacks a premise, and they have missed the self-circularity of the argument because of it.
Fowler's Modern English Usage classifies begging the question in
a somewhat different fashion (from, for example, the meanings from Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the
American Heritage Dictionary). Fowler's states that it is "[t]he fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs
to be proved as the conclusion itself." This is more commonly known as the fallacy of
many questions.
Related fallacies
Though "begging the question" and "circular reasoning" are often used interchangeably, some textbooks maintain that this is
not quite correct in the strictest sense. In this view there is the following difference between them: Circular Reasoning is the
basing of two conclusions each upon the other (possibly with one or more intermediate steps). That is, if you follow a chain of
arguments, the conclusion of some argument is used as a premise in one of the earlier arguments that eventually led to that
conclusion. Begging the question can occur within one argument; on this understanding, begging the question occurs if and only if
the conclusion is implicitly or explicitly a component of an immediate premise.
Contested modern usage
More recently, "begs the question" has been widely used as though it is equivalent to "invites the question," "prompts the
question," "raises the question," or to indicate that "the question ought to be addressed." In this usage, "the question" is
stated in the next phrase. For example: "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars.
This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" This usage has met with substantial resistance among
prescriptive grammarians.[2][3][4][5][6] .
Argument over whether this usage should be considered "incorrect" is an example of the debate between linguistic prescription and description.
See also
References
- ^ a b Barker, Stephen [1965] (2003). ""Chapter 6: Fallacies"", The Elements of Logic, Sixth Edition, New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 159-161. ISBN 0-07-283235-5.
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
