I have read about some of the logical fallacies, but
this video makes them easier to understand and more fun. I still don't know what 'begging the question' means though.
heh.
-joe (that's begging the question) friday
The logical fallacy, also known as
petitio principii, (for which 'begging the question is a lousy translation IMNSHO), is the fallacy of assuming your conclusion in one of the premises.
The logical fallacy, also known as
petitio principii, (for which 'begging the question is a lousy translation IMNSHO), is the fallacy of assuming your conclusion in one of the premises.
Now THAT was crystalline clear. Thank you.
beg [v]
6. To take for granted without warrant; esp. in to beg the question: to take for granted the matter in dispute, to assume without proof; b) to evade or sidestep
-joe (just another sense of beg) friday
beg [v]
to take for granted the matter in dispute, to assume without proof;
-joe (just another sense of beg) friday
Even simpler, which is even better. Thanking you too I am.
Neither Stephen nor I meant to assert anything about the existence of any god nor about the prevalence of any specific argument. That particular example was merely offered as an example of the fallacy in question. If you want to discuss the rationality of any argument about the existence of God I would suggest
Internet Infidels.
Neither Stephen nor I meant to assert anything about the existence of any god nor about the prevalence of any specific argument.
I'd also like to add that some people posting to this thread seem to need a humour transfusion. The link I posted was obviously fun and light-hearted, but drew dense, long-winded and numbingly earnest responses from all but Faldage and tsuwm, with the added "bonus" of a sermon/borderline religious rant thrown in. I think this is the sort of situation where my English teachers would have said that it was appropriate to use the idiom, "lighten up people".
Neither Stephen nor I meant to assert anything about the existence of any god nor about the prevalence of any specific argument. That particular example was merely offered as an example of the fallacy in question. If you want to discuss the rationality of any argument about the existence of God I would suggest
Internet Infidels.
I don't want to discuss the existence of God here, no, and I never said that you did "assert anything about the existence of any god" etc. I was only commenting on the topic AFAIAC.
The web page I pinked to earlier in Miscellany has a good entry for
begs the question:
An argument that improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker is trying to argue for is said in formal logic to “beg the question.” Here is an example of a question-begging argument: “This painting is trash because it is obviously worthless.” The speaker is simply asserting the worthlessness of the work, not presenting any evidence to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. Since we never use “begs” with this odd meaning (“to improperly take for granted”) in any other phrase, many people mistakenly suppose the phrase implies something quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be asked—raises the question. If you’re not comfortable with formal terms of logic, it’s best to stay away from this phrase, or risk embarrassing yourself.
The web page I pinked to earlier in Miscellany has a good entry for
begs the question: Since we never use “begs” with this odd meaning (“to improperly take for granted”) in any other phrase, many people mistakenly suppose the phrase implies something quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be asked—raises the question. If you’re not comfortable with formal terms of logic, it’s best to stay away from this phrase, or risk embarrassing yourself.[/color]
And I say that if you can't take the fact that a phrase which bears little resemblance to its original meaning has been taken over by folks who don't care what the original meaning is and use it in their own way to mean something completely different from its original meaning then drop the use in its archaic meaning and substitute something that does mean what you want it to mean, e.g., 'assuming the consequent' or call it by the Latin
petitio principii and baffle those who commit the fallacy.
The web page I pinked to earlier in Miscellany has a good entry for
begs the question: Since we never use “begs” with this odd meaning (“to improperly take for granted”) in any other phrase, many people mistakenly suppose the phrase implies something quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be asked—raises the question. If you’re not comfortable with formal terms of logic, it’s best to stay away from this phrase, or risk embarrassing yourself.[/color]
And I say that if you can't take the fact that a phrase which bears little resemblance to its original meaning has been taken over by folks who don't care what the original meaning is and use it in their own way to mean something completely different from its original meaning then drop the use in its archaic meaning and substitute something that does mean what you want it to mean, e.g., 'assuming the consequent' or call it by the Latin
petitio principii and baffle those who commit the fallacy.
I agree, give the saying over to its popular use and employ something that everyone understands. I think the term "circular argument" or "circular reasoning" is as good as any - it conveys very succinctly and unambiguously the meaning of the phenomenon in lay terms. Although... perhaps it might be good to baffle your opponents with Latin instead.
Here is an example of a question-begging argument: “This painting is trash because it is obviously worthless.” The speaker is simply asserting the worthlessness of the work, not presenting any evidence to demonstrate that this is in fact the case.
A question-bagging argument. Informal terms of logic.
(surprised to find that
bag is really a verbe).
Don't remember having it ever seen used as such.
(surprised to find that bag is really a verbe).
Don't remember having it ever seen used as such.
can I bag your groceries? or we could go out and bag some game?
:¬ )
I agree, give the saying over to its popular use and employ something that everyone understands. I think the term "circular argument" or "circular reasoning" is as good as any - it conveys very succinctly and unambiguously the meaning of the phenomenon in lay terms. Although... perhaps it might be good to baffle your opponents with Latin instead.
Welcome to the apologist crowd. It is usually the ignorant among the media that drives this sort of distortion. By all means, let's just count wrong and popular as correct. But there may need to be announcements on when the transitions occur, so we all know in each case.
Maybe Aramis is just being nice.
Welcome to the apologist crowd. It is usually the ignorant among the media that drives this sort of distortion. By all means, let's just count wrong and popular as correct. But there may need to be announcements on when the transitions occur, so we all know in each case.
That's nice.
Yes I must be ignorant. I have no idea what you are accusing Fadage or me of being an apologist FOR? Last time I looked an apologist was a proponent of something. Seems to me the apologists are those arguing FOR the archaic obscure esoteric misunderstood linguistic status quo.
(surprised to find that bag is really a verbe).
Don't remember having it ever seen used as such.
can I bag your groceries? or we could go out and bag some game?
:¬ )
It is a verb in Australian everyday usage. From Collins Compact Australian Dictionary:
"
bag vb 14. Austral slang to criticize"
To bag someone or "bag them out" is to tease or provoke them with insults, often in a jocular way amongst friends, but sometimes in what amounts to bullying. I suspect it probably comes from Cockney slang. It also occurs as a participle,
bagging/bagging out.
A similar trem, "sledging" is often used in cricket and other sports of disparaging or rude comments made to your opponents to put them off their game.
A similar trem, "sledging" is often used in cricket and other sports of disparaging or rude comments made to your opponents to put them off their game.
USn version would be 'trash talk.'
The logical fallacy, also known as
petitio principii, (for which 'begging the question is a lousy translation IMNSHO), is the fallacy of assuming your conclusion in one of the premises.
Howya Faldage
Lissen, what is the exact location a the premises ta what yer referren? And which of the premises is the conclusion in? Cos I'm positive I left me conclusion in some premise somewhere and if I could only find it, I'd have the answer ta alla the Grate Questions posed here. Plus I'd get me wallet back ta boot.
Be seein ya
GallantTed
The first premise, also known as the major premise, is usually kept in the top drawer behind the bar. The second premise, also know as the minor premise, isn't allowed in the bar, being too young, so you'll generally find it in the second drawer of the teacher's desk at the primary school. If it isn't there ask the teacher, she may have mislaid it or perhaps she has it at home for grading purposes. The conclusion is usually found in the major premise, so I'd check there first, and, while you're there have one on me. Just tell the barkeep to put it on my tab. Sometimes, though, it's in the minor premise and the teacher isn't so free with these things so you might have to do some sweet-talking, but I know that won't be a problem for you. Good hunting and good luck. Oh, and whatever you do, if it's in the minor premise don't beg. She'll just see it as a sign of weakness and all your sweet-talking won't do you a bit of good.
nice post faldy, very funny.
Sometimes a premise precedes much (mental) suffering, as the word may imply with some pseudo-etymology applied to it.