Begging the Question

[SpeedOfSound]

Let me rephrase. Your argument is logically valid. However, we can spot the false premise and there's got to be some terminology for logic that uses too many premises, you're doing that there.

As far as I know there isn't. Generally, people consider it a good thing to strive for parsimony (having as few premisses as neccesary), but that's not a part of logic. It's an aesthetic principle without objective basis. It's generally known as Occam's razor. The fact that it doesn't have an objective basis doesn't make it a bad thing, though. Keeping things as simple as possible is good practice.

I think the term that describes this is 'rule of relevance' and it applies to arguments.

It might be good to mention that a statement can be a tautology but not an argument, which is a set of statements. JOZeldenrust pointed that out above but I think was not clear about the difference obtained by joining the statements with conjunction.

[SpeedOfSound]

If a proof is sound, conjugating all premisses and having them imply the conclusion results in a tautology. So "If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal" is a tautology.

I don't think that's a tautology. (A&B)->C ???
It's just a sound argument.

[JOZeldenrust]

If a proof is sound, conjugating all premisses and having them imply the conclusion results in a tautology. So "If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal" is a tautology.

I don't think that's a tautology. (A&B)->C ???
It's just a sound argument.

You're ignoring quantifiers here. Let's say "@" is a universal quantifier, "M" is a one-placed sentence function that is interpreted as "... is a man", "D" is a one-placed sentence function that is interpreted as "... is mortal", and "S" is a zero-placed name function that is interpreted as "Sacrated".

In this case "(@x(Mx -> Dx)) & MS -> DS" is a tautology.

So "if it holds that: "for every "x", if "x" is human, then that "x" is mortal," and "Socrates is human", then "Socrates is mortal"" is a tautology.

[SpeedOfSound]

You're ignoring quantifiers here.

Yup. I didn't consider the all when I looked at it.
BTW. Thanks for the educational posts here. You know your shit.

[SpeedOfSound]

Consider this argument for a type of idealistic godism:

The observation of B, by A,
is an event happening to A.
That is,
the observation of B,
happens at A.

Therefore,
the observation of B,
is not B itself
(is not the 'reality' of B).
In fact,
'observed B'
is a phenomenon
that is actually reducible to A itself
(such as a brain-state, for example).

As the author proceeded it became obvious that the argument had enough slop in it to drive any mega-turd shaped philosophy though it. It has multiple problems and one of them I suspect is begging the question.

The author seems to want to present a strong case for the existence of the observed B not mattering. In fact not existing at all. He makes stronger statements in other places that there is in fact no evidence whatever for B existing.

Now that's odd because what we have always considered to be evidence for B is that we can, in fact, observe it. But he feels that he has dispelled that definition of evidence in the argument above. I think he has carefully setup his conclusion with sloppy definitions followed by the assertion that obs(B) reduces to just A.

I think this is begging the question because a partial and putative definition is made on 'observe' followed by statements meant to discredit that definition that use the definition itself.

What do you all think?

[mistermack]

You know your shit.

Agreed.

[SpeedOfSound]

My post above doesn't seem editable.

should say in the last paragraph:



I think this is begging the question because a partial and putative definition is made on 'observe' followed by statements meant to discredit that definition, that use the definition themselves. There is certainly vagueness here and lack of clarity but I think it intentionally used to slant our thinking toward the 'mind' side of a passive observation .

[SpeedOfSound]

The following argument is I think of the same form that I offered above.

Susie got very ill at the carnival
The carnival has plenty of cotton candy and Suzie ate plenty
Therefore:
Suzie's illness reduces to carnival cotton candy.

We have two known to be true premises followed by the desired conclusion. Not a good argument obviously.

This is not strictly begging the question because while you are required to accept the premises as true just accepting the premise does not commit you to the conclusion. Is there a way to rewrite the premise so it would do this?

As it turns out Suzie spent one hour trying to beat her muscle-bound date at hammering the pin and ringing the bell and then clutched her chest and fell down with a cardiac arrest. A little detail left out in the premises.

So I think I'm wrong about my first example. These are both cases of invalid arguments and they are invalid because the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

[JOZeldenrust]

How do you prove the above "Socrates is black" using the syllogism?
You have to verify line 1,and line 2, thereby proving line 3.
But to verify lines 1 and 2, you have to first check all men are black. How do you do that, without including Socrates?

So to PROVE that Socrates is black, you have to first CHECK AND VERIFY that Socrates is black.

Therefore, to ARGUE that Socrates is black, you have to first ASSUME he is black. You're simply assuming it in two steps, not one.

Proving the premisses isn't part of logic. The premisses are given. How you can know if they're true is another matter alltogether. That's exactly why "begging the question" is an expression that means nothing in the context of formal logic, and analyzing syllogisms isn't going to get you anywhere.

When someone is begging the question, his argument depends on a premiss that is either implicit, in which case "begging the question" is a rhetoric device, and might not even be a fallacy, or the premiss is explicit, but suspect. In that case it's an epistemological question. In neither case is examining syllogisms going to get you anywhere.

[SpeedOfSound]

When someone is begging the question, his argument depends on a premiss that is either implicit, in which case "begging the question" is a rhetoric device, and might not even be a fallacy, or the premiss is explicit, but suspect. In that case it's an epistemological question. In neither case is examining syllogisms going to get you anywhere.

Do you have good rich example?

[mistermack]

Proving the premisses isn't part of logic. The premisses are given. How you can know if they're true is another matter alltogether.

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."[2]

If you can't prove the premisses, you can't prove the proposition.
So without proof, by the definition, you're just begging the question.

What's the point of a syllogism, if you can't use it. Is it actually a tool, if you can't use it?

That's exactly why "begging the question" is an expression that means nothing in the context of formal logic, and analyzing syllogisms isn't going to get you anywhere.

And conversely, that's exactly why "formal logic" is totally irrelevant to this thread, which is about begging the question in a syllogism.

[JOZeldenrust]

Proving the premisses isn't part of logic. The premisses are given. How you can know if they're true is another matter alltogether.

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."[2]

If you can't prove the premisses, you can't prove the proposition.

You won't be able to prove the premisses. The truth of a premiss is inductive, so proving it's true is impossible.

So without proof, by the definition, you're just begging the question.

What's the point of a syllogism, if you can't use it. Is it actually a tool, if you can't use it?

You can examine the structure of the syllogism, and establish if the conclusion follows from the premisses. That's all logic is. All the rest is either empirical or axiomatic. If your premiss is empirical, like "all men are black", then that knowledge is inductive. Proving it is out of the question anyway. If it's an axiom it's just something both parties in the argument have to agree on.

That's exactly why "begging the question" is an expression that means nothing in the context of formal logic, and analyzing syllogisms isn't going to get you anywhere.

And conversely, that's exactly why "formal logic" is totally irrelevant to this thread, which is about begging the question in a syllogism.

And a syllogism is a schematic in (an old fashioned variety of) formal logic. Looking at syllogisms isn't going to help. This entire thread is the result of people trying to use formal logic for things it's not meant for, starting with the OP.

[Coito ergo sum]

I thought the OP was the claim that

All A are B
C is an A
Therefore, C is a B

begs the question.

The answer is, it doesn't, because the conclusion is not assumed in the premises (either of them). And, it doesn't matter what symbol you use in place of A, B, and C. If C is Socrates, a is "men" and b is "mortal", it still doesn't "beg the question" at all, because the conclusion is not assumed in either of the premises.