Begging the Question

[Coito ergo sum]

There are two forms to this. The one I use is "This just begs for the following question to be asked."

That's the most popular interpretation, and used to get people all hot and bothered on RDF!

Yeah, but it's really not correct. The word "beg" in "beg the question" is used in the sense of "avoid," not "plead for or ask for."

That's certain ONE WAY of looking at it.

Certainly. The right way.

http://begthequestion.info/


http://hubpages.com/hub/Begging-the-Que ... sed-phrase

[darren]

thanks for your responses.

[mistermack]

Is this an example of begging the question? Why or Why not?

All items in group X have Property Y
A is in group X
A has property Y
Thanks.

Of course it's begging the question. Or at least a definite fallacy. The last line should read,
"if all items in group X have property Y, and A is in group X, A has property Y"

"A has property Y" hasn't been proved.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Is this an example of begging the question? Why or Why not?

All items in group X have Property Y
A is in group X
A has property Y
Thanks.

Of course it's begging the question. Or at least a definite fallacy. The last line should read,
"if all items in group X have property Y, and A is in group X, A has property Y"

"A has property Y" hasn't been proved.
.

?

The first line is the premise - all items in group X have property Y.

The second line says that A is in group X

Thus, A has property Y.

It's not begging the question, it's a classic syllogism.

Major premise: All men (X) are mortal (Y)
Minor premise: Socrates is a man (X).
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal (Y).

[mistermack]

Depends if you count the first line as the premise, or the first two lines.

[Coito ergo sum]

Depends if you count the first line as the premise, or the first two lines.

?

It doesn't depend on that. Whether taken together or alone, they are two premises, a major and minor one.

[camoguard]

I think the logic is sound. The actual truth of the statements depends on the first statement being true.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the logic is sound. The actual truth of the statements depends on the first statement being true.

That's always the case with logic. One can start with a faulty premise and then proceed perfectly logically to a completely false conclusion.

[camoguard]

I think the logic is sound. The actual truth of the statements depends on the first statement being true.

That's always the case with logic. One can start with a faulty premise and then proceed perfectly logically to a completely false conclusion.

But that's the point. The structure of the concluding is one part and that is the logic. The facts that need to be checked are then listed like an outline. It's like math. You get a formula but then you actually need to use real measurements.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the logic is sound. The actual truth of the statements depends on the first statement being true.

That's always the case with logic. One can start with a faulty premise and then proceed perfectly logically to a completely false conclusion.

But that's the point. The structure of the concluding is one part and that is the logic. The facts that need to be checked are then listed like an outline. It's like math. You get a formula but then you actually need to use real measurements.

That doesn't relate at all to whether one is begging the question.

One can say.

All humans are caucasion.
Obama is a human.
Therefore, Obama is a caucasian.

That's a perfectly logical syllogism. It's wrong. But, it's perfectly logical. And, it's the basic premise that is wrong. But, it doesn't beg the question (going back to the OP).

[A Monkey Shaved]

Some syllogisms get just get dated in the light of new evidence like for example:
All the planets orbit the Sun
Earth is a planet
Therefore the Earth orbits the Sun

The conclusion to that syllogism is still true today, but the old major premise that "all the planets orbit the Sun" is no longer valid since the indirect discovery of numerous extrasolar planets which do not orbit the sun.
Syllogisms can only be a good as the credibility of their major premise and often frequently the major premise begs the question.

[camoguard]

Some syllogisms get just get dated in the light of new evidence like for example:
All the planets orbit the Sun
Earth is a planet
Therefore the Earth orbits the Sun

The conclusion to that syllogism is still true today, but the old premise that all the planets orbit the no longer true since the indirect discovery of numerous extrasolar planets which do not orbit the sun.
Syllogisms can only be a good as the credibility of their major premise and often frequently the major premise begs the question.

yeah. But we're not talking about accidentally getting something right. We're talking about repeatably using mechanics that help us focus our thinking. In this case you find out the first statement is false, therefore, you should stop there. The conclusion is not properly related to the statement.

Related to belief systems, having a god exist isn't the point. Failing to use logic means you can be right and also that you'll never have any principle to explain why it is you are right. So the rest of us should not act upon the believer's "proof".

[Coito ergo sum]

Some syllogisms get just get dated in the light of new evidence like for example:
All the planets orbit the Sun
Earth is a planet
Therefore the Earth orbits the Sun

The conclusion to that syllogism is still true today, but the old major premise that "all the planets orbit the Sun" is no longer valid since the indirect discovery of numerous extrasolar planets which do not orbit the sun.
Syllogisms can only be a good as the credibility of their major premise and often frequently the major premise begs the question.

No, it's not begging the question. If the major premise is wrong it's wrong. A wrong premise doesn't necessarily beg the question. The premise begs the question if it assumes as true the conclusion.

Yes, not all planets orbit the sun, but that doesn't beg the question that the Earth orbits the sun. To say all planets orbit the sun is an assertion that is either wrong or not wrong, it doesn't beg any question.

[leo-rcc]

Or the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It assumes that you have been beating your wife.

That is more a loaded question, another nice one. Whether you answer yes or no it puts you in a bad daylight regardless.
Yes implies you have done it before, No implies you are still doing it.

[A Monkey Shaved]

Some syllogisms get just get dated in the light of new evidence like for example:
All the planets orbit the Sun
Earth is a planet
Therefore the Earth orbits the Sun

The conclusion to that syllogism is still true today, but the old premise that all the planets orbit the no longer true since the indirect discovery of numerous extrasolar planets which do not orbit the sun.
Syllogisms can only be a good as the credibility of their major premise and often frequently the major premise begs the question.

yeah. But we're not talking about accidentally getting something right. We're talking about repeatably using mechanics that help us focus our thinking. In this case you find out the first statement is false, therefore, you should stop there. The conclusion is not properly related to the statement.

Related to belief systems, having a god exist isn't the point. Failing to use logic means you can be right and also that you'll never have any principle to explain why it is you are right. So the rest of us should not act upon the believer's "proof".

The old major premise that "all swans are white" was a major premise that was considered beyond doubt for centuries and many people generally thought that it was in a category of syllogisms that it was "unfalsifiable" that is where they stopped - until black swans turned up in Australia