Begging the Question

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Circular argument; assuming the premise; assuming the conclusion.

Description

The advocate uses the conclusion, or rather the point he or she is attempting to make, as the premise for his or her argument. The circularity of the claim is usually disguised, as the premise and the conclusion are stated in different ways (one is a paraphrase of the other). When advocates "beg the question", they fail to seek external support for their claims. The point under discussion is assumed, rather than demonstrated to be true.

Examples

1. Dotty Pymplebaume is President of the Major-Player Financial Syndicate. She is giving the keynote address to the Society for Currency Remuneration and Excessive Wealth Underwriting (SCREWU), at their semi-biennial conference. Her address is entitled Free-Trade: Why it's good for everyone. She closes her speech with the following summary of her position:
   

   People and organizations opposed to free trade clearly don't understand its logic. To me it's self-evident that free trade is good for everyone. The progress being made by politicians and economists towards the unrestricted flow of goods between countries will result in great benefits to this country and to the whole world.

2. Russell Farside is explaining gender issues to his friend Mitch Grinspoon: "Men need to get in touch with their feminine side."

"Why?" asks Mitch. "I'm perfectly happy being masculine. Shouldn't men and women just behave how they feel?"

"I don't think that is a healthy way of living," responds Russell. "It's good for men to gain a better balance of their masculine and feminine selves."

Comment

The fallacy of begging the question assumes as "evidence" for the argument the claim or point that is in question. Dotty's argument, when dissected, is a clear example of begging the question. She has assumed without any external evidence that her claim (free trade is good) – is correct. She attempts to justify this claim by restating this in a different form.

First she says: "...the unrestricted flow of goods between countries..." This is a long-winded reiteration of "free trade". Free trade is the unrestricted flow of goods between countries. She then follows up with the claim that this "...will result in great benefits to this country and to the whole world." This is merely a paraphrase of her original claim that "...free trade is good for everyone."

In the second example, the same kind of specious reasoning is used. Stripped of its rhetoric, Russell believes that "men need to get in touch with their feminine side" because it is good for them. He gives no actual evidence for this claim; he merely asserts an opinion.

Begging the question is an easily identified fallacy once an argument has been dissected. The conclusion and the premise are identical in all but their expression. Reasonably adroit proponents are able to disguise this reiteration well. But this deception is readily exposed when the skeptic points out that the advocate is simply restating the premise as the conclusion.

It should be noted that the expression "begging the question" is routinely misused by journalists. When a journalist, or interviewee or commentator says (for example) that: "This begs the question that..." they often actually mean "This raises the question...". This corrupted usage should be resisted - unless the original meaning of useful words and phrases is preserved, we lose precision in language. Lack of precision in language is often symptomatic of a parallel lack of precision in thinking. Without being too pedantic, when the phrase "begging the question" is used incorrectly in our presence, it is worthwhile pointing this out. At the same time, it might be useful to point out that careless word usage often signifies careless reasoning.

False Attribution

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Unreliable source; fabricated source (c.f. appeal to authority).

Description

This deceptive tactic involves an advocate appealing to a marginally relevant, irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or even non-existent source to support a claim. The advocate may in some cases have a "half-hearted" degree of faith in the alleged source (they may have a dim recollection of having read something somewhere about the topic), or the advocate may deliberately fake knowledge of a source which they know does not exist.

Example

Simon Murmurgut and Jenny Peristalsis are selling home-made herbal extracts at the local market. They have a sign at their stall advertising a "special slimming mixture". The main ingredient is paspalum juice. They are challenged by Kevin Jaded, a skeptical bystander. He says: "How do you know it works?"

Simon immediately responds: "There has been a recent study published in the Medical Journal of Patagonia which shows that eating four grams or more of paspalum each day results in the loss of up to 500 grams of body fat per fortnight."

Comment

If Simon did in fact read such an article, and if he is truthfully reporting the findings, he is not guilty of false attribution. However, if he only thinks that Jenny may have mentioned about a month or two ago that she had read somewhere in a South American journal that eating some paspalum each day results in the loss of some body fat, then he is guilty of false attribution. In this case, he is deliberately misleading Kevin about his own degree of certainty about the supposed "facts". If however, Simon is just inventing the reference, then he is guilty of the most reprehensible form of false attribution – deliberate deception through the citation of a fake source.

The deliberate or inadvertent fabrication of source information is a common feature of vigorous discussion. It is a tactic often used in desperation by advocates when they feel that the argument is about to be lost. The seeker after truth will often be assured by advocates that they have read some compelling facts about the topic under discussion – facts which unequivocally support the advocate’s position. The initial response of a seeker after truth to apparent dissembling of this kind should be a courteous request for a specific citation. This request should not be in the form of a provocative challenge, if the skeptic wishes to maintain a positive emotional climate as the discussion proceeds. In making the request, the point should be made that "going directly to the source" is always more reliable than a second-hand report.

Skeptical seekers after truth will not reject claims a priori. Nor will they accept claims a priori. They will reserve judgment on an issue and ask advocates for details of the source – with a view for reading it for themselves. Note that this request for a citation so that the skeptic can read the alleged information for themselves will not usually resolve the question on the spot, so the question may remain open. However, the more dedicated debunker may decide to pursue the issue beyond the particular discussion as a matter of principle. If the skeptical opponent subsequently finds out that false attribution has taken place, they could take the trouble to contact the evasive advocate (perhaps even several months after the initial discussion) and point out that the source cited doesn't exist, or the advocate's interpretation was in error.

In the day and age of internet enabled mobile devices such as mobile phones and tablets, made up on the spot false attributions will likely be easier to detect and a less effective form of humbug. As such, false attributions will likely become more elaborate. As the Wikipedia entry on false attribution now notes, devious and immoral frauds may even go as far as to create fake sources in order to cite them to support a claim.

(Note: if you are thorough you will no doubt attempt to verify the above reference to the Wikipedia entry on false attribution. It will almost certainly bear no resemblance to the citation above because of subsequent capricious editing. Check the revision history for 07:14, 28 April 2010 UTC to verify that this reference was valid at almost the exact time this updated section to the book was written - 07:37, 28 April 2010 UTC.)

 

Red Flag Faux Pas

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Specious allegations of fallacy; Fallacy Abuse.

Description

The advocate is overly quick to claim an opponent has made a fallacy when in fact the opponent has not.

Example

Religious apologist Bjorn Belleeber, writing in the peer reviewed journal Theological Ratiocinator, is critiquing an argument forwarded in a paper from the prior edition.

Begging the Question is a fallacy that occurs when a disputant uses his conclusion as one of the premises employed to establish his conclusion. In his paper, Dawkitch asserts that: "Over time, as we progress through history, our society gets older and wiser and our view of the world and everything in it becomes less and less superstitious and more realistic. We stop believing in spirits, demons and the undead. Our model becomes realistic; over time, we update it with correct information from the real world." How can Dawkitch know this is true before all the evidence is in? Dawkitch begs the question and assumes that his conclusion is true by restating the premise.

Comment

"Red flags" are the particular things one looks out for that could mean a fallacy is in play. For example, gratuitous insults and slurs on an opponent's character could mean an Ad Hominem attack. "Faux pas" comes from French, meaning “false step”. In English (and French) faux pas are embarrassing violations of social norms. So in this sense a Red Flag Faux Pas is the embarrassing mistake of accusing someone of making a fallacy, when in fact they have not.

Just because a red flag has caught one's attention, in order to avoid taking a "false step", one shouldn't be overly hasty in claiming a fallacy has been committed. Is the red flag the basis of an argument? If so, then it is likely a fallacy is being made. If the red flag is an addendum to an argument or point, or simply not part of an argument, then it may not be fallacious (it might simply be impolite and/or irrelevant).

The example above is not Begging the Question, as Belleeber claims. There is no premise in Dawkitch’s statement. There is also no conclusion. Ergo, it’s not Begging the Question. It is simply an assertion. One can choose to agree or disagree with it, but it’s not Begging the Question. Begging the Question would be more like:

Over time, as we progress through history, our society gets older and wiser and our view of the world and everything in it becomes less and less superstitious and more realistic. We stop believing in spirits, demons and the undead. This is because our model becomes realistic over time, we update it with correct information from the real world and stop relying on supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena.

Note the introduction of the word "because". This clearly shows this is the sentence that attempts to justify the claim in the initial section. But of course, it’s simply the initial claim reworded to sound like a justification. Now it is a Question Begging argument. Dawkitch should only be accused of making an unsupported assertion. This in itself could be argued is error enough. Every sentence simply repeats this assertion in a different manner for more emphasis.

Making a Red Flag Faux Pas is understandable. In cases such as the example above, the continued repetition of the same point is easily mistaken for a Question Begging argument, just as insulting somebody is easily assumed to be an Ad Hominem attack. The key to identifying a fallacy is careful consideration of the structure of the argument or position. Is is formulated as an argument? If not, it is more than likely a naked assertion, which can be dismissed in any case.

 

Podcast - Hunting Humbug 101: Tutorial 26 - Begging the Question

Begging the question is a type of circular argument that all should be familiar with, because then everyone would know about using the premise of an argument as the conclusion.

Play the tutorial 


Powered by Podbean.com

or download the mp3:  

The future of the world economy begs the question

John Wilson, equity strategist at Morgan Keegan, explains why his job is difficult at the moment:

“Margin calls and mutual fund redemptions along with hedge fund redemptions and deleveraging [?] means there is forced selling going on to accompany the selling that is simply a result of fear and capitulation,” he said.

“At the same time, there is uncertainty of how deep the recession could be. It’s tough to discount the future when you just don’t know exactly how the current situation will unfold.”

Let’s look at that last sentence again. It’s tough to discount the future when you just don’t know exactly how the current situation will unfold. That’s because the future is the unfolding of the current situation! I.e. he has said: “It’s tough to predict the future because I don’t know how things are going to go in the future.” Well, yes. We all face that problem. A great example of Begging the Question. To be fair to Wilson, I assume this is a direct quote of him speaking. You shouldn't be too critical of what people say off the top of their heads.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding his use of the words “discount” and “future”? Perhaps he is referring to specific technical terms used in high finance? E.g. “discount”, as in selling shares cheaper (reducing the face value) and “future”, as in the futures market? But if so, then what he is saying makes no sense to me either. Although that’s not too surprising given my one effort in studying economics (financial markets) at university was a titanic struggle for me, due to both the time (6 to 8 pm) and the content of the lectures. I found relativity and elementary particle physics far more comprehensible (though not quantum physics – I still lose sleep over that crazy arsedness…).

Website:
Share on Facebook
Podcast:

______________
Source: Daily Telegraph, Bleak News Sends Wall Street South Oct 17 2008.

The SHAM fallacies

A few posts ago I mentioned a book by Steve Salerno, SHAM: Self Help and Actualization Movement - How the gurus of the self-help movement make us helpless. I've just moved into a new job, and as a token of appreciation from the employer I was leaving I was given a book voucher. (I was told they gave me a voucher rather than choosing a book for me, as they know I've read almost everything and I have very particular tastes... not that they knew nothing about me and could not be bothered to think about it, as I had originally assumed.) I decided to hunt down SHAM, and was successful.

I've just finished the introduction and already it is apparent that Salerno has a great understanding of fallacies. For example, Salerno points out the typically circular - Begging the Question - type of points made by SHAM authors:

This is not to say that all SHAM rhetoric is patiently false. In fact, there are whole categories of self-help precepts that can't possibly be disputed. That's because they're circular - the guru who espouses them is saying the same thing in different ways at the beginning and end of sentence. The conclusion merely restates the premise. Here's a perfect example from Phil McGraw's New York Times number one best seller Self Matters: "I started this process by getting you to look at your past life, because I believe that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. That being true, the links in the chain of your history predict your future." The "that being true" makes it sound as if McGraw is rousing to some profound conclusion. But he isn't. The part after "that being true" merely repeats what he said in the first sentence, with slightly altered wording. It's not a conclusion at all. It's what logicians call a tautology.

(Dr. Phil's facial expression, when asked whether he has any data that demonstrates the efficacy of his work, speaks for itself.)

The other technique SHAM authors are fond of is Gibberish:

Other SHAM kingpins, or ambitious pretenders, achieve a certain contrived plausibility by using puffed-up, esoteric-sounding jargon. In August 2004, Dan Neuharth, PhD, the author of Secrets You Keep from Yourself: How to Stop Sabotaging Your Happiness, told the readers of magazine First for Women that "avoidance is a knee-jerk response to a core fear that threatens your ego." Translation: We avoid things we're really afraid of.

It's one of those books that has me nodding in agreement every page. The question I put to people I know with these self-help books in their house is: "How come you have more than one?"

An example of a non-fallacy

Sometimes the best way of coming to understand something is by seeing an example of what it isn't, or as in this case, someone else's misunderstanding. Peter S. Williams provides us with this opportunity. For someone who claims to be a philosopher, to make such "school boy errors" in logic is extraordinary. That's why I used the word "claims". Perhaps I'm being overly harsh. He writes a lot, and the more you write, the more opportunity for error. However, in this article, Darwin’s Rottweiler and the Public Understanding of Scientism, he claims Richard Dawkins is guilty of making many fallacies in his arguments. I think Williams is wrong in nearly everything he says. (Here's a guy who claims the non-answer: "God did it" is scientific - he even "trumpets" peer reviewed paper on Intelligent Design. The worth of peer review depends on your peers. It was published in Philosophia Christi and is available via Discovery.org. Was it that he was still waiting for some experimental data - so wasn't quite ready for Nature or Science?) As such, I have neither the time, inclination, or respect to deal with all his misidentifications of fallacies. (Besides the above, he wrote a book on angels - gimmie a break, and a fan guide on both Doctor Who and The Matrix... see the first link.) I will probably return to it in the future, as "there's gold in them there hills".

For the moment, I'll deal with this specific example, where Williams thinks he has spotted an example of Begging the Question. He is wrong. The following italicised text is his work:

2. Begging the Question - ‘this fallacy occurs when a disputant uses his conclusion as one of the premises employed to establish [his] conclusion.’ [5]

Dawkins asserts that: ‘As time goes by and our civilization grows up more, the model of the universe that we share will become progressively less superstitious, less small-minded, less parochial. It will lose its remaining ghosts, hobgoblins and spirits, it will be a realistic model, correctly regulated and updated by incoming information from the real world.’ [6] How can Dawkins know this assertion is true before all the evidence is in? Dawkins assumes that his conclusion is true and then promises that it will be justified on evidential grounds at some unspecified point in the future.

This is not an example of Begging the Question as Williams claims. There is no premise in Dawkins’ statement. There is also no conclusion. Ergo, it’s not Begging the Question. It is simply an assertion. You can choose to agree or disagree with it, but it’s certainly not Begging the Question. Begging the Question would be more like:

‘As time goes by and our civilization grows up more, the model of the universe that we share will become progressively less superstitious, less small-minded, less parochial. It will lose its remaining ghosts, hobgoblins and spirits, it will be a realistic model, correctly regulated and updated by incoming information from the real world.’ [My added bit that would turn this into Begging the Question follows] This will occur because as we build more realistic models that are based on good information, we rely less on finding supernatural, small-minded and parochial answers for hitherto unexplained phenomena.

Note the bolded word in my added section - because. This clearly shows this is the sentence I’m using to try and justify the claim in the initial section. But of course, it’s simply the initial claim reworded to sound like a justification. Now it is a Question Begging argument. The actual statement itself may or may not be true (I happen to think and hope that it is/will be true). But the point is it can only be Begging the Question if a claim is made, and then attempted to be justified using the same point as was made in the original claim.

As I said above, Dawkins could only be accused of making an unsupported assertion. Every sentence simply repeats this assertion in a different manner for more emphasis. Reading it again, with emphasis on the right words makes this quite clear:

‘As time goes by and our civilization grows up more, the model of the universe that we share will become progressively less superstitious, less small-minded, less parochial. It will lose its remaining ghosts, hobgoblins and spirits, it will be a realistic model, correctly regulated and updated by incoming information from the real world.’

By only saying “it will” Dawkins is only making a claim. "It will be this, it will be that..." We need a “because”, or an “as”, or a “since” or whatever synonym Shift F7 delivers, to have some kind of justification. In saying this, for all we know Dawkins has been taken out of context and did forward some reasons for this belief. Further to this, my version would not be Begging the Question if the “because” I added was demonstrably true. I’d suggest this is possible to do. The most obvious would be we can see this occurring as a simple historical fact. Over the centuries, with more and more science, or more and more education, humans become less and less superstitious. The data support this – once someone has a university degree their superstition dies of dramatically. If we accept this premise, and add to that as we move forwards in time we will have the required economic and social capital to continue with scientific research and (universal) education, the conclusion – less superstitious etc., follows.

Of course, off the top of my head I can’t remember where I read this. I think it was some really impressive journal, a paper by some super smart researcher, so you’ll just have to take my word for it… you trust me don’t you?
_____________
Update: see Red Flax Faux Pas

Question begging Bishop

In Today's Australian the new Federal Education Minister, Julie Bishop, makes this convincing argument about the teaching of history:

THE time has come for a renaissance in the teaching of Australian history in our schools. By the time students finish their secondary schooling, they must have a thorough understanding of their nation's past.

Fair enough I say. But why Ms Bishop?

It makes young people more informed citizens and better able to appreciate where our nation has come from and how we have arrived at our place as a modern lib-eral [sic] democracy.

Oh? A thorough understanding of our nation's past means people are more informed about where our nation has come from etc.? Wow, I'm convinced.

All she has done is argued for her first statement, that students ought to have a thorough understanding of the past, by saying that if they have a thorough understanding of the past they will be informed about the past. This pigheaded reasoning is an example of Begging the Question.*

In saying that, I'm all for the non-politicised teaching of and renewed focus on, Australian history, which is what the current Federal government is on about. And the rest of her opining is fairly reasonable. Though it's fair to say that non-educators need to tread wary when discussing issues of curriculum. The last Federal education minister, for example, gave credence to ID. (That's not to say they couldn't possibly have a reasoned opinion - otherwise I'd be guilty of Special Pleading.)

________________
*I'm possibly being a bit harsh, in that she does say they'll know why we are where we are now (a modern liberal democracy). I.e, she adds a little more to her argument than a simple restatement of her premise. But I wanted to post today.

Tagged - Fallacy Skepticism, Begging the Question.

Intelligently Designed Cat Escapes Bag

Advocates of Intelligent Design tend to claim that they aren’t trying to sneak God into the science curriculum. People such as this aren’t helping their cause:

Sharon Lemburg, a social studies teacher, soccer coach and minister's wife, was the ID teacher. She defended the class to a local publication writing, "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach."

There are many articles, books, and most recently a court case that explain why intelligent design isn’t science. However, the reason why it is not science need not be so prolix. ID isn’t science because scientific theories don't rely on the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

ID claims that if, in the living world, there are irreducibly complex objects, then evolution by natural (and sexual) selection cannot explain them. If this is the case, they argue, given these structures are complex and clearly have a purpose, they must have been designed by an intelligence. The point to note is that they do not propose how these structures were designed, so in effect their explanation is not an explanation. It explains precisely nothing.

The ID claim boils down to - if you can’t explain this phenomena, then my theory is right. This is certainly not how one argues for a scientific hypothesis, and moreover, it is a fallacious argument. For a theory to be considered plausible there needs to be evidence for it. It doesn't simply "win"* if another theory is missing the occasional explanation (though all the things ID proponents claim evolution can't explain have been explained by evolutionary biologists in an orthodox fashion).

In his book, Just a Theory, Moti Ben Ari proposes what I consider to be a very accurate definition of a scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a concise and coherent set of concepts, claims and laws (frequently expressed mathematically) that can be used to precisely and accurately explain and predict natural phenomena.

A theory should include a mechanism that explains how its concepts, claims, and laws arise from lower-level theories.

ID fails to meet this criteria just a miserably as astrology (say).

Already we've seen some of the major problems with ID. However, it doesn't end yet. The more general argument from design is a False Analogy that Begs the Question. ID proponents argue that we have A - irreducibly complex machines which show structure and order. And we have B - irreducibly complex biological machines, which also show structure and order. We know that A has been created by an intelligent designer (namely us), therefore it follows that B must have also been created by an intelligent designer (namely God). This is a classic, but in the end specious, inductive argument:

All the things in the world we know of, that have been intelligently designed, have certain properties which conclusively demonstrate they have been intelligently designed. It follows then, that anything which also has these properties must also have been intelligently designed.

But all we really know for certain is that human artefacts were made by humans. We don't know for sure that these other 'designed' things are the product of intelligence. In fact this whole argument is circular, it 'begs the question'. It assumes as its premise the conclusion it's trying to demonstrate. It's basically saying, "something that is designed has properties which show it was designed." This conclusion, though tautological, is acceptable. But the next part of the argument is a non-sequitur. "Therefore something which shows these properties was intelligently designed." All we know for sure, is that when humans design something, it inevitably has properties such as complexity, structure, purpose and order etc., but we can't conclusively demonstrate that this reasoning applies in reverse, that complexity, structure, purpose and order, can only be the product of intelligent design.^ They assume a priori, that things which have properties such as complexity and purpose, are a proof of intelligence.

Note that this watchmaker argument from analogy is hardly new.

_____________
* If any other theory besides evolution was to "win", I'd be casting my vote for the flying spaghetti monster.

^ BTW - there's nothing wrong, philosophically, to believe the entire universe is designed by an intelligence (namely God) - a masterful programmer who has written intricate laws which govern our existence. But this is a hypothesis which is unable to be tested, one that does not offer any mechanism or precise predictions etc. Ie, it is not science. It is a metaphysical belief. Science and theology are both branches of metaphysics but to try and prove God's existence through science is an ontological error. (On top of which is the problem that it's not possible to prove anything, in the strict sense of the word, except mathematical/logical truisms based on the acceptance of a priori axioms/premises.)

Technorati Tagged - Fallacy, Skepticism, Burden of Proof, False Analogy, Non Sequitur, Begging the Question, Intelligent Design.

Crap TV makes make oldies stupid

Who’d ‘a’ thunk it? (Me dis afanoon wach Jerry Springer, Oprah, and da Bol an da Beauful. dam it... wat me rite nex... ummm me brane urt... got me hed stuk in da cupbord... neeed momont too figre owt...)

Soaps, Talk Shows May Dull Aging Brains:

New research suggests that elderly women who watch daytime soap operas and talk shows are more likely to suffer from cognitive impairment than women who abstain from such fare.

[1 hour later - slaps self in face] I’m okay now.

Back to the point. It could be that watching garbage on TV makes elderly women stupid, or, of course, stupid elderly women may be attracted to watching crap shows, as they are too stupid to enjoy anything else. Or it could just be a coincidence.

To conclude that it’s the TV shows which are causing lower cognitive ability is a classic case of Confusing Correlation with Causation. To be fair, the article I’ve examined, doesn't end up doing that; it goes on to cite the researchers’ emphasis that they do not propose a hypothesis as to what causes what:

Researchers stress that it's not clear if watching these TV shows leads to weaker brainpower, or vice-versa. And they say it's possible that another explanation might be at work... Their findings appear in the March issue of the Southern Medical Journal.

If I were a gambling man I’d guess it’s a bit of both. Stupid to start with and you then become stupider the more you watch. (I’ll "justify" this position with Flawed Circular Reasoning. You’d have to be stupid to watch it in the first place, as only stupid people would watch it. And you get stupider as you watch it, as you’d have to be more and more stupid to continue to do so.)

Note - Obviously (I hope!) I am not implying I'm and elderly woman (not that there's anything wrong with being and elderly woman) at the beginning of the post where I pretend [deliberate emphasis] to be stupid. (And apologies to Monty Python.)

Last-Ditch Effort to Save Begging the Question

I've almost given up on preserving the useful, formal meaning of the phrase Begging the Question. The phrase is so often misused by ignorant journalists to mean something like "avoiding the question" that it is almost ready for termination. However, I will persist, since journalists, of all people should not be the arbiters of English usage; and should not be permitted to steal formal concepts from logicians. A useful definition (and plea for correct usage) may be found here.

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.

Examples of Begging the Question

The advocate makes a circular argument where the conclusion is in essence a restatement or paraphrase of the premise.

• The future of the world economy begs the question
• The SHAM fallacies
  
• An example of a non-fallacy
• Question begging Bishop
  
• Intelligently Designed Cat Escapes Bag
• Crap TV makes make oldies stupid
• Last-Ditch Effort to Save Begging the Question

For a comprehensive and considered written commentary on Begging the Question (and other fallacies) - see The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking - Humbug!

Podcast on Begging the Question

Play the tutorial 

Powered by Podbean.com

or download the mp3: