Begging the Question

[Coito ergo sum]

We appear to have incompatible views of what logic. I think logic is the structure and the structure of the example is sound. Sure, checking the premises is an important part of the step, but often times, such as in Geometry, we used premises that we had demonstrated first so we knew them to be true.

In any argument or debate, you can attack a person's argument in two main ways:

1. Looking at the logic alone. Take what the person said, and break it down to show that what they are arguing does not logically follow from their premises. An example would be if they argue from authority or use ad hominem. "Bush is liar and an idiot," and "Bush never taught a day in his life" -- therefore his No Child Left Behind program is a complete bust. it may be true that Bush is a liar and an idiot and he may have never taught a day in his life - but it doesn't logically follow from those premises that the No Child Left Behind program is a complete bust.

It may be true that the No Child Left Behind program is a complete bust - but, it doesn't LOGICALLY FOLLOW from the premises asserted that it is a bust.

2. One can also attack the premises. In other words, is it true that Bush is a liar and an idiot? What evidence do we have to support that? Or, is it true that he never taught a day in his life? Maybe he was a teacher for a year back in 1973. Let's assume he was. Then you can attack the other person's argument by saying "you're premises are wrong, Bush taught school in 1973, which means your assertion that he did not teach a day in his life is wrong. Therefore, your argument fails."

Where mistermack goes wrong is conflating these two concepts. And, he seems to think that whenever the conclusion does logically follow from the premises, that the premises must be begging the question because they are true.

[Coito ergo sum]

We appear to have incompatible views of what logic. I think logic is the structure and the structure of the example is sound. Sure, checking the premises is an important part of the step, but often times, such as in Geometry, we used premises that we had demonstrated first so we knew them to be true.

Yeh, but we're dealing with a premise that can be true or false.

All premises can be true or false.

So line 1 is an ASSUMPTION : All men are mortal.

It's an assertion, which may be true or false.

So as soon as you write line 2 : Socrates is a man, line 1 assumes he is mortal.

No, it doesn't assume anything. It merely asserts all men are mortal. That may not be correct.

So before you get to the conclusion, you've assumed that Socrates is mortal.
.

No YOU have assumed he's mortal. The minor premise asserts he's a man.

Logically, IF Socrates is a man, and IF all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal. No question begging at all.

Even if not all men, in reality, were mortal, and even if Socrates was a monkey in reality, the logic still holds true and there is no question begging.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mistermack, if you would, could you please tell me, yes or no, if the following in your opinion begs the question:


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


Does that, or does that not, beg the question?

[camoguard]

Coito ergo sum and I basically agree. I'm bored of this topic because it seems like one of those scenarios where mistermack is trying to establish a point that doesn't really do anything for me. I already know to look at the statement to evaluate truth or falseness. I already know to look at the structure to identify comprehensive logic.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum and I basically agree. I'm bored of this topic because it seems like one of those scenarios where mistermack is trying to establish a point that doesn't really do anything for me. I already know to look at the statement to evaluate truth or falseness. I already know to look at the structure to identify comprehensive logic.

This is just one of those threads that make me shake my head. I'm wondering...are we being trolled to see how long we will argue this thing, or does he really not get it? It seems so bleeding obvious to me, and after it's been explained six ways from Sunday, he still keeps repeating the same error. I think a straight answer to the question I posed in my last post would go a long way to clearing this up.

[camoguard]

Coito ergo sum and I basically agree. I'm bored of this topic because it seems like one of those scenarios where mistermack is trying to establish a point that doesn't really do anything for me. I already know to look at the statement to evaluate truth or falseness. I already know to look at the structure to identify comprehensive logic.

This is just one of those threads that make me shake my head. I'm wondering...are we being trolled to see how long we will argue this thing, or does he really not get it? It seems so bleeding obvious to me, and after it's been explained six ways from Sunday, he still keeps repeating the same error. I think a straight answer to the question I posed in my last post would go a long way to clearing this up.

It's like that kid in the math class that doesn't see why you don't have two lines of work for a math question: one line for the original equation, and one line for the answer. And everybody else is saying "but you took mental steps to get there."

[mistermack]

Syllogism dominated Western philosophical thought until The Age of Enlightenment in the 17th Century. At that time, Sir Francis Bacon rejected the idea of syllogism and deductive reasoning by asserting that it was fallible and illogical[4]. Bacon offered a more inductive approach to logic in which experiments were conducted and axioms were drawn from the observations discovered in them.

It's not just me that thinks it's bollocks. This stuff comes from people who believed in multiple gods and all sorts of spooks and fairies. I'm a sceptic. I don't believe in accepting things just because some iron-age people said it was so.

And :

One notable exception to this modern relegation, however, is the continued application of the intricate rules of Aristotelian logic, as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Roman Curia's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

That says it for me.
.

[camoguard]

Can you use quotes of ancient people after saying you don't follow claims of ancient people? I think you're fired.

[mistermack]

Can you use quotes of ancient people after saying you don't follow claims of ancient people? I think you're fired.

You owe Francis Bacon a lot more than you realise. That WHY they called it the age of enlightenment.

His works established and popularized deductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method or simply, the scientific method.

.

[Coito ergo sum]

Syllogism dominated Western philosophical thought until The Age of Enlightenment in the 17th Century. At that time, Sir Francis Bacon rejected the idea of syllogism and deductive reasoning by asserting that it was fallible and illogical[4]. Bacon offered a more inductive approach to logic in which experiments were conducted and axioms were drawn from the observations discovered in them.

It's not just me that thinks it's bollocks.

This debate was not about whether it was "bollocks." It was about whether it was "begging the question." It wasn't.

This stuff comes from people who believed in multiple gods and all sorts of spooks and fairies. I'm a sceptic. I don't believe in accepting things just because some iron-age people said it was so.

Are you mad?

Here's a book from 1995 called "A Logic Primer." You need it. http://books.google.com/books?id=7vQ132 ... &q&f=false

Chapter 1 will help you with what an "argument" is. A set of premises....and a conclusion...an argument is valid when, if all the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.

And :

One notable exception to this modern relegation, however, is the continued application of the intricate rules of Aristotelian logic, as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Roman Curia's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

That says it for me.
.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about a basic syllogism. Two premises which, if true, necessarily lead to the conclusion.

[Coito ergo sum]

Can you use quotes of ancient people after saying you don't follow claims of ancient people? I think you're fired.

You owe Francis Bacon a lot more than you realise. That WHY they called it the age of enlightenment.

His works established and popularized deductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method or simply, the scientific method.

.

Where, exactly, did any of what you posted have anything to do with whether the syllogism we've been discussion "begs the question?"

[Coito ergo sum]

Mistermack, if you would, could you please tell me, yes or no (and why), whether the following in your opinion begs the question:


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


Does that, or does that not, beg the question?

And, are you claiming Francis Bacon thought it begged the question?

[mistermack]

I'm sorry I missed answering this, but it's never too late.

Would it be helpful if you thought of the premisses as conditional statements? Try reading the syllogism like this:

Premiss 1: If all men are mortal
Premiss 2:If Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Then Socrates is mortal.

It's the same thing more or less. I think we are talking at cross purposes here. The above lines are perfectly correct, the conclusion is blindingly obvious. (Obviously). All I'm saying is that you achieve the conclusion by assuming it in the first place. ( begging the question ). Once you've done that, it's bound to look logical, and you're bound to get the same conclusion that you already assumed.

Perhaps I can illustrate it better with black and white, instead of mortal?
Imagine that all men were black. This is what you get.

1) All men are black
2) Socrates is a man
3) Socrates is black

Now imagine that all men, apart from Socrates, are black, but Socrates is white. If I do this,

1) All men are black
2) Socrates is a man
3) Socrates is black

I've just proved that a white man is black! What did I do wrong? Line 2 is still correct. The error is in line 1. Actually all men, apart from Socrates, are black. What I did was assume line 3, that Socrates is black, in the premise. I should have written "All men, apart from Socrates, we don't know about him, are black".

Exactly as I explained earlier.
.

[Hermit]

I've just proved that a white man is black!

You have done no such thing. The argument goes:
Premiss one: All men are black.
Premiss two: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is black.

Now, you do know what a premiss is, don't you? Yes, it is something you propose and if what you propose is wrong, the conclusion is wrong. So, we may say (once again): If all men are black and if Socrates is a man, then Socrates is black. Only one of the two premisses would need to be wrong for the conclusion to be invalid. If you look at premisses as conditional statements - which is what they are in symbolic logic - the issue of circularity (begging the question) flies out the window.

[mistermack]

If Socrates is black
then Socrates is black.

Everything you say applies equally to that!
.