Begging the Question

[JOZeldenrust]

Joz, you admitted that Begging the question has no place in formal logic and then continue to criticize points of view in this thread about begging the question. If this is a non-sequiter and thus a non-factor then why the hell are you talking about formal logic beyond saying that this question is irrelevant?

"Begging the question" is a specific retoric form of a non sequitur, of something that doesn't follow from the premisses. The things that people would call "begging the question" in retorica are called non sequiturs in the underlying logical structure. "Begging the question" isn't irrelevant, it's a subset of all non sequiturs that is defined by certain characteristics that are outside the domain of logic. So if the OP wants to understand what "begging the question" is in terms of formal logic, he has to understand that the underlying logical structure is what's called a non sequitur, a proposition that doesn't follow from the premisses.

I've criticized others because they made errors in logic. Even in discussions that are ultimately irrelevant, sloppy reasoning should be avoided.

Mistermack, this thread has led me to two conclusions. You are either an idiot or a troll. There is no other possibility.

[mistermack]

Care to explain how formal logic has been discredited?

Care to explain what YOU mean by formal logic? I suspect it's different to what I mean.

Logic is a tool. On its own, it doesn't do anything. It's only for examining the structure of arguments, not for the content.

My definition of a tool would be something that makes a desired process easier, quicker, or more reliable. If it doesn't do that, it's discredited as a tool. Examining the structure of arguments, is that a desired process? Not to many, I think. I've never seen it used in something important.

The kind of logic I'm using isn't that old: most of it was thought up by Frege, in his 1879 publication "Begriffschrift".

It's hardly taken the world by storm as a tool then, has it?

And quoting Sciencerobs insult is even more cowardly than the original.
He didn't bother with any reasoning, you don't even bother with your own words.
I don't detect much integrity here.
.

[camoguard]

Oh man. You two need to agree so I can conveniently disagree with both of you.

I don't understand either of your uses for logic but I understand mine. Logic is a framework to hang what we know on and see if that results in extrapolated information. I think it works. I try to formulate my thoughts in if-then statements and see how far I go whenever I'm debugging a situation. I am a software engineer...

[Coito ergo sum]

Christ, this is still going on.

Begging the question: To assume what has still to be proved: “To say that we should help the region's democratic movement begs the question of whether it really is democratic.” (from dictionary.com)

Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly in premise. It is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence. http://answers.askkids.com/Math/what_is ... e_question

If I say:

All dogs have four legs
Fido is a dog
Therefore Fido has four legs

I am not begging the question.

It doesn't matter if some dogs have three legs or five, in reality. I'm not begging the question.

It doesn't matter if all dogs really do have four legs. I'm not begging the question.

Why, because the fact the conclusion "Fido has four legs" is not assumed implicitly -- it FOLLOWS from the premises.

That can't be any more clear. There is nothing about that which has been "discredited." It's perfectly logical, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Similarly,

All men are mortal
Socratese is a man
Therefore Socratese is mortal

Is NOT begging the question

Neither is:

All men are immortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is immortal

It doesn't matter if the conclusion is correct. If a man named Socrates really is mortal, the syllogism still works and no questions are begged.

Similarly,

All A's are B
C is an A
Therefore C is a B.

It's all the same thing! It's not illogical. It hasn't been discredited. It doesn't beg the fucking question.

Period.

Get it?

[mistermack]

Get it?

You still don't get it.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly in premise.

Yes, IN PREMISE, meaning in the PREMISE OR PREMISES.

Begging the question: To assume what has still to be proved:

You don't seem to get that either.
.

[JOZeldenrust]

Care to explain how formal logic has been discredited?

Care to explain what YOU mean by formal logic? I suspect it's different to what I mean.

Formal logic is a system of:
1: symbols to describe states of affairs (name functions and sentence functions),
2: identity and negation,
3: logical connectives (logical if/then, or, and),
4: quantifiers ("all x ..." and "there exists an x ...").

Propositions can be desribed using this system, and if they are then the relationships between the truth values of that proposition and any other proposition can be examined on purely formal grounds, just by manipulating quantifiers and connectives according to certain rules (based on truth tables or natural deduction, the two are actually equivalent).

Logic is a tool. On its own, it doesn't do anything. It's only for examining the structure of arguments, not for the content.

My definition of a tool would be something that makes a desired process easier, quicker, or more reliable. If it doesn't do that, it's discredited as a tool. Examining the structure of arguments, is that a desired process? Not to many, I think. I've never seen it used in something important.

It's used in science and mathematics all the time. Important enough?

The kind of logic I'm using isn't that old: most of it was thought up by Frege, in his 1879 publication "Begriffschrift".

It's hardly taken the world by storm as a tool then, has it?

It's a specialized tool, but it has taken the part of he world that regularly used its predecessor, aristotelian logic, by storm. First order logic has completely replaced aristotelian logic in less then a century, where the old tool lasted two thousand years.

And quoting Sciencerobs insult is even more cowardly than the original.
He didn't bother with any reasoning, you don't even bother with your own words.
I don't detect much integrity here.
.

That was a shiboleth. I had meant to remove that part, but I forgot. Sorry.

You do come accross as a troll though. It might not be intentional, but being dismissive of things you don't understand isn't aiding the discussion.

[JOZeldenrust]

Get it?

You still don't get it.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly in premise.

Yes, IN PREMISE, meaning in the PREMISE OR PREMISES.

"Begging the question" requires an implicit premiss. You can't be implicit in formal logic. A premiss is either there, or it isn't. If it's there, you've lost the characteristic of being implicit, and you have a valid argument (that's most likely unsound, because the truth value of the premiss is generally not accepted). If it isn't there, you've lost the characteristic that there is an additional proposition in play, and the argument is invalid.

[Coito ergo sum]

Get it?

You still don't get it.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly in premise.

Yes, IN PREMISE, meaning in the PREMISE OR PREMISES.

Begging the question: To assume what has still to be proved:

You don't seem to get that either.
.

I get that you are way off base.

The syllogism that you keep claiming is "begging the question," isn't, because saying "All men are human" and then "Socrates is a man" -- doesn't ASSUME that Socrates is human. That's the conclusion, drawn from the premises.

Socrates may not be human. He may be your neighbor's dog, Socrates. So, the second premise may be factually incorrect, which is a good ground for attacking the premise and defeating the argument. I.e. - "Your conclusion is wrong, because Socrates is not a man, he's a dog, and therefore the basic premise of your argument fails." But, that does NOT mean that the syllogism begs the question, because the premises do not assume the conclusion.

Got it, yet?

[mistermack]

OK, JOZeldenrust, apology accepted. I reacted to what was on the page, so if posting that was a mistake, I take back that bit about integrity.

I see we mean different things, with formal logic.
I meant making formalized rules, for what most people do naturally, without a rigid framework.

I'm not talking about maths or science, nor is this thread, so I'm not making any judgement about any formal rules in those fields, I don't think I implied that in any way.
If "formal logic" is the name of a useful mathematical tool, it's firstly not what I was talking about, and secondly, that doesn't mean it transfers properly to non-mathematical questions.

I can't see much logic in you bringing this up at all. Why come onto a thread about begging the question, quoting a discipline in which begging the question doesn't happen? Everyone else is discussing if something begs the question, going on the widely available context and definitions.

A fundamental problem here is the word logic. Today we have a widely accepted meaning, and I think it should be reserved for that meaning. That's why I favour the word bollocks for attempts to formalise it for non-scentific purposes. It adds clarity.

You do come accross as a troll though. It might not be intentional, but being dismissive of things you don't understand isn't aiding the discussion.

I think what I was dismissive of was perfectly clear. You might choose to take it another way, but I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant.
Also, your ability to quote "formal logic" means nothing, and doesn't impress as real understanding on your own part. You get a lot of people on the web trying to "big up" there own ego with quotes, but I take more note of what you do with it, and when you have to backtrack, as you did.
Reading up, being able to quote, and actually understanding are very different things.

[camoguard]

Dude, trolls don't argue about logic. Trolls argue about evolution.

[mistermack]

The syllogism that you keep claiming is "begging the question," isn't, because saying "All men are human" and then "Socrates is a man" -- doesn't ASSUME that Socrates is human. That's the conclusion, drawn from the premises.

Socrates may not be human. He may be your neighbor's dog, Socrates. So, the second premise may be factually incorrect, which is a good ground for attacking the premise and defeating the argument. I.e. - "Your conclusion is wrong, because Socrates is not a man, he's a dog, and therefore the basic premise of your argument fails." But, that does NOT mean that the syllogism begs the question, because the premises do not assume the conclusion.
Got it, yet?

I don't see how anybody can get anything from that gobbledgook.
You seem to be getting more and more confused. Why don't you have another go, before I grace it with a reply?
To help you out, Socrates being a man, and being human, are the same thing in this argument. It was about Socrates being MORTAL.

But if that confuses you too much, use this :

All men are black
Socrates is a man
Socrates is black.

The principle is identical, but I like this better, because you can tell if he's black without killing him.

[camoguard]

I think mistermack is saying "All Men" includes Socrates. I do not see that as being the case. I think Socrates is not included in the first premise until the second premise has been established.

[Coito ergo sum]

The syllogism that you keep claiming is "begging the question," isn't, because saying "All men are human" and then "Socrates is a man" -- doesn't ASSUME that Socrates is human. That's the conclusion, drawn from the premises.

Socrates may not be human. He may be your neighbor's dog, Socrates. So, the second premise may be factually incorrect, which is a good ground for attacking the premise and defeating the argument. I.e. - "Your conclusion is wrong, because Socrates is not a man, he's a dog, and therefore the basic premise of your argument fails." But, that does NOT mean that the syllogism begs the question, because the premises do not assume the conclusion.
Got it, yet?

I don't see how anybody can get anything from that gobbledgook.

English can be difficult for some.

You seem to be getting more and more confused. Why don't you have another go, before I grace it with a reply?

It's clear as crystal.

To help you out, Socrates being a man, and being human, are the same thing in this argument.

That is where you are wrong. They aren't the same thing.

All men are human is a premise. Whether it is true or untrue is irrelevant in terms of the logic. It may as well be "All A are B."
And Socrates is a man is another premise. Whether it is true or untrue is irrelevant to the logic. It may as well be "C is an A."
Therefore, Socrates is a human - that's a conclusion which follows necessarily from the premises REGARDLESS of whether the premises are true. It may as well be "Therefore, C is a B."

Got it? Even if it is:

All dogs are cats.
Fido is dog.
Therefore Fido is a cat.

That is logical for the same reason that the Socrates syllogism is logical. Even if Fido is not a dog, in reality, or even if not all dogs are cats is the reality, the syllogism still works. If you're in a debate, and someone uses a syllogism to present their argument, you can attack it in a couple of ways, (1) does the conclusion NECESSARILY follow? and (2) are the premises "true."

A person can start with erroneous premises and then proceed perfectly logically to a completely wrong conclusion.

It was about Socrates being MORTAL.

It doesn't MATTER what it's about.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Perfectly logical. It doesn't beg the question. It is the same as "All A are B" "Socrates is an A." Therefore, "Socrates is B."

This can't be that hard for you. You must be a troll, because I can't believe anyone is this stupid.

But if that confuses you too much, use this :

All men are black
Socrates is a man
Socrates is black.

The principle is identical, but I like this better, because you can tell if he's black without killing him.

Right - and it doesn't beg the question. If all men are black and if socrates is a man, then socrates is necessarily also black.

We know from experience that not all men are black. And that is a good way to attack this argument - by demonstrating that the premise is faulty. However, the logic holds. It doesn't beg the question.

[mistermack]

I think mistermack is saying "All Men" includes Socrates. I do not see that as being the case. I think Socrates is not included in the first premise until the second premise has been established.

That's fair enough camoguard. You at least have the brains to see the argument. I'm glad there is one.

I'll try and clarify why I argue that. Take the simplest form of the argument. :

All men are black
Socrates is a man
Socrates is black.

There are two possible versions. 1) Where line 2 is true. 2) Where line 2 is false. ie, Socrates is a dog, snake, or something, but not a man.
It doesn't matter when you include it in your argument. Socrates either IS an man, or he isn't.

Where line 2 is false, it's nonsensical, it's a fallacy because line 3 doesn't logically follow.
In the case where line 2 is true, "All men" does indeed include Socrates, so it does indeed beg the question. So it's either nonsensical, or begs the question.

Lines 1 and 2 are both part of premise. Look up begging the question in wikipedia, you can beg the question in a single step, or in more than one.

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

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think mistermack is saying "All Men" includes Socrates. I do not see that as being the case. I think Socrates is not included in the first premise until the second premise has been established.

But the thing is - he's wrong. You are correct. Because we don't know that Socrates is a man until that premise is explicitly stated. Socrates may be a dog.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a dog
Therefore...we can't come to any conclusion.


All dogs are mortal
Socrates is a dog
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

It is NOT implicit in "All men are mortal" or "All dogs are mortal" that Socrates is a man, or a dog. He might be a cat. He might be a girl. He might be a rock. We don't know.