Talk:Begging the question/Archive 1

message: This was an argument I -actually found- on a groups.google page. The whole article is too long to put here but the intro goes like this: "Atheism is self-contradictory, since a pure atheist would have to prove he or she did not exist, prior to proving that God does not exist. An atheist is a combination of outward physical material matter, combined with internal spiritual 
matter that has always existed and is co-eternal with God.  The only way an atheist could prove 
therefore that God did not exist, is to validate the fact that Mankind does not exist.  Not!"
Worst.Circular Reasoning.Ever.
If you want to read the rest of this 'argument' its here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.158.178 (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great example actually used by someone if you want it 

message: The intro appears to be a list with three items, numbered 1, 2, 2. What the hell?! Please, clarity. 163.192.21.44 19:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, fix this page 

message: (1) Alice: God created the world.
    Bob: How do you know that?
(2) Alice: Because it says so in the Bible.
(C) Bob: How do you know that the Bible is correct?
(3) Alice: Because the Bible is the word of God in written form.
    Bob: How do you know that the Bible is the word of God.
(2) Alice: Because it says so in the Bible.
We have (2) implies (1)
        (3) implies (C)
        (2) implies (3)
        If C is true then (2) is true
Thus (2) implies (2) thus (1) is true.      
===And here is a simpler example===
Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth. -- Picapica 09:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here is an example 

message: Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth. -- Picapica 09:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: And here is a simpler example

message: Fowler, in Modern English Usage, distinguishes between Begging the Question and Circular Argument as follows:
:Arguing in a Circle: The basing of two conclusion each upon the other. That the world is good follows from the known goodness of God; that God is good is known from the excellence of the world he has made. 
:Petitio Principii or Begging the Question: 'assumption of the basis'. The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. Arguing in a circle (see above) is a common form of p.p. That foxhunting is not cruel, since the fox enjoys the fun & that one must keep servants because all respectable people do so, are other examples of begging the question or p.p., in which the argument is not circular.
Gyrae 05:09, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
::In other words, circular arguments are particular instances of petitio principii, but not all cases of begging the question involve circular arguments. -- Picapica 09:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me moderate that a bit.  Further research brings up the question how one can count arguments.    With one acception: a formal syllogism is well defined.  Begging the question is appropriate against a single syllogism.  Fowler suggestions that a charge of circular reasoning isn't.  --Stefanbojark 03:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between ''Begging the Question'' and ''Circular Argument'' 

message: I would like to describe this term as used in criticism of mathematical proof. Does this fit into this article, or should I create another? Should PP be a redirect here? (I will get back to the section below some time, I expect. Truth is eternal, so I'm in no hurry at the moment. ;-) ) Mr. Jones 17:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like somthing that should be included here. Banno 22:21, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petitio Principii 

message: I'm not sure where this fits in to the discussion of the fallacy, but the entry really ought to clarify what begging the question means.  To beg the question is to make a statement that leaves something important out. It is not another way of saying "raising the question", it means "not raising the obvious question", or "not answering the actual question". Tannin 07:25, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Tannin, I thought the article dealt with the more recent version of the meaning of the phrase rather well. My inclination would be simply to say that it was a bastardisation, and shouldn’t be in the encyclopaedia. Instead the article points out how it relates to the circularity, and goes some way to showing how this misuse of the term came to be popular. I can accept that. But I would hate to see the disappearance of the old meaning – what I would call the correct meaning. Banno 11:37, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that the description of the colloquial (contemporary? commonly used?) definition in the article is inverted, Tannin? Or have I misunderstood? If I haven't, I agree with you and wonder what was wrong with the title I suggested. Mr. Jones 11:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, no-one then, clearly :-) I was just whingeing a bit about how you'd phrased the title. Be happy. Mr. Jones 17:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: There's some truth in that. However, it's still widely used, even if only ironically or jokingly. Mr. Jones 17:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting the (colloquial?) definition right

message: There is another usage of "begging the question" I have come across-in Isaac Newton's discussion of a proposed explanation of elasticity-the proposal posited "springs" that connected molecules. Newton pointed out this "Begs the Question" by explaining springiness of macroscopic objects in terms of springiness of microscopic objects. Apparently Newton felt that this was just postponing a real explanation for elasticity. This kind of "begging the question doesn't seem circular to me.--Richard Peterson 21:15, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds to me like the (disputed) meaning given right at the bottom of the article, where "the phrase has nothing to do with arguments in logic at all and merely refers to raising an issue." R Lowry 22:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, since Newton was not "badly educated", the prescriptive linguists will probably not decree his usage to be "incorrect" ;)  Cadr 11:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: yes Newton's prestige probably helps, whether or not it was correct usage in the late 1600s/early 1700s.-Richard Peterson75.45.110.140 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another useage of the term (possibly) 

message: The article states:
:For instance, to prove that the sum of the first 244 integers is 29890, it is easier to first prove a more general assertion, such as
::The sum of the first n integers equals 1/2 times n times (n+1).
Whether this statement is true really depends on how you prove each assertion. They both can be proved in about 10 seconds using a short yet convincing argument with ellipses (...). For example:
1 + 2 + \ldots + 244 \,\!	= \frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix} 1 &+& 2 &+& \ldots &+& 244 \\ &&&+ \\ 244 &+& 243 &+& \ldots &+& 1 \end{bmatrix} (half of the sum plus itself)
                         	= \frac{1}{2}\,[245 + 245 + \ldots + 245] (244 terms in the sum)
                         	= (1/2)(244)(245) = 29890.
If you want more mathematical rigor, they can still both be proved equally easily using summation notation. Only if you won't accept either of those methods (and why not?) would the latter assertion have to be proved using mathematical induction and, I suppose, the former would have to be written out and added up the long way.
There's gotta be a better example. Maybe:
:1-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{1}{6}+\ldots=\ln2
versus:
:x-\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{x^3}{3}-\frac{x^4}{4}+\frac{x^5}{5}-\frac{x^6}{6}+\ldots=\ln(1+x)
where ln represents the natural logarithm function.
Not as simple, I admit, but it does have the advantage that there's no easier way (as far as I know) to prove the first assertion than to just recognize it as a special case of the second (when x = 1). The second assertion is "easy" to prove with Taylor series.
- dcljr 06:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical example 

message: Please do not just revert - change what I've put, so that we are making progress. The ref to Pinker has no place on this page. It is not about BtQ. If you want a revert war, I'm happy to oblige - but generally that just results in the page being locked out until you agree with me;-) Banno 02:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
:As I said, you're in no position to preach about reverting, and your comments on edit wars are childish. Anyway, I'm not sure why you think something specifically about BtQ has to be found, given that descriptivists are against deeming pretty much any nonstadard usage incorrect or detrimental to a language. As a compromise, I've removed the extensive statements of prescriptivist POV.
:If any descriptivists have written anything on BtQ (I expect someone has somewhere), you can bet that what they'd say is that, in general, when a word/phrase changes its meaning it's an entirely natural occurance and not a big problem, and so in this specific case it isn't either.
:The bottom line is that if you want to state the prescriptivist POV in detail on every page about a usage question, you'll have to state the descriptivist POV too. I'd be happy with stating neither, except on the page about the general issue of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism.Cadr 02:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverts 

message: * Every intentional act of killing a human being is morally wrong.
* The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being.
* Therefore the death penalty is wrong.
If the first premise is accepted as an axiom within some moral system or code, this reasoning is a cogent argument against the death penalty. If not, it is in fact a weaker argument than a mere assertion that the death penalty is wrong, since the first premise is stronger than the conclusion. ''
The second sentence in the paragraph article doesn't mean anything to me. Does anyone think they can better phrase it? --komencanto 10:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think basically the bolded statement above is being described as 'less wrong' than the first statement, assuming they could both be incorrect. This is because the first statement is making a much larger assumption than the death penalty statement, so has a much larger chance of being wrong (hence 'weaker argument'. There are a huge number of different intentional acts of killing a human being, so to condemn every one as being wrong makes for a weaker argument than just saying one is wrong. Richard001 21:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical sentence 

message: "In an obviously related sense the phrase is occasionally used to mean "avoiding the question". Those who use this variation have apparently missed the circularity of the argument, and understood the phrase to be pointing to a missed premise."
Do you mean that there are people who use "begging the question" to talk about not understanding the premise on which an argument could be phrased?
I've reworded it this way: "In a related sense, the phrase is occasionally used to mean "avoiding the question". Those who use this variation are explaining that the argument lacks have a premise, and they have missed the circularity of the argument because of it."
--lux 03:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing explanation under "Variation" 

message: I removed the recently added paragraph  on grounds of brevity and relevance and POV, perhaps even original research.
Essentially, it seems to be saying that the new meaning is bad because it doesn't mean the same thing as the old meaning.  It does not have the same emotional weight and does not make the same kind of criticism.  But that's no surprise... it's an entirely different meaning!  It would be a surprising coincidence if, for instance, "occupation" (job) and "occupation" (military occupation) carried the same emotional weight and connotations.
It also makes the unjustified claim that emotional vestiges of the old meaning carry on to the new meaning.  I don't think so: the overwhelming majority of those who use the new meaning are entirely unaware of the traditional meaning... in fact, that's probably why they use the new meaning.
Incidentally, the word I used as an example ("occupation") once had a sexual connotation a few centuries ago and was banned from use in polite society. It would be hard to argue that there are any lingering "emotional vestiges" from this old meaning, precisely because nobody is even aware of the old meaning.
In any case, it's a stretch to say that the traditional meaning of "begging the question" has some kind of serious negative emotional impact.  Essentially, it just describes muddleheaded thinking or confusion, not making an accusation of lying or deception.
-- Curps 05:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm of added paragraph 

message: Since "begging the question" is an expression that means "should ask the question", wouldn't a name like "circular reasoning" be more appropriate for this article? In fact, I found it by typing in "circular reasoning".
Furthermore, "circular reasoning" is a well-known logical fallacy, whereas "beg the question" is lesser known in this context. Therefore, I propose this article have its name changed.
:Ther'es a segment in the article about how it's different from circular reasoning; therefore, it's different according to our own standards and thus shouldn't be renamed. Kuroune 02:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be renamed to "Circular reasoning"? 

message: It was my understanding that most cases in which a question is begged are do to straw man arguments, which instead of answering the question attack a similar but weaker stance, leaving the question begging. I was kind of surprised to see a lack of mention of straw man arguments in this article. Am I wrong, or does this simply need to be added? Shaggorama 07:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "straw man" is, as that article states, a way to attack an opponent's position in an argument. It is not a proof via circular logic. AKismet 16:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw man arguments 

message: I submit that it should be possible to express what is meant by 'incorrectness' with an operational statement which does not characterize anyone's usage as being incorrect, and does not set up a standard of correctness. In this case, we could say something like the following: When people with a basic education in logic or philosophy hear the phrase "begs the question" used in the sense of "raises the question", most of them will think that it is inconsistent with their understanding of what it is to "beg the question". Most others will probably think nothing of it.
This is clear, non-judgmental, and states the consequences of the usage plainly. The reader can then fairly evaluate whether he is willing to accept those consequences. 
I suspect that most arguments about correctness and incorrectness in English usage are pointless, and time spent on them is wasted. Tex 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond correctness and incorrectness 

message: A recent change to the example shown as a syllogism changed it to an ordinary implication, and not a fallacy at all. It became p implies q, suppose p, thus q. This is just the definition of implication. I am not sure I understand the previous version completely, but the change was definitely wrong. Therefore I am reverting it. Tex 17:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the example to be consistent with one kindly given by a philosophy course at Lander University. The web site is very instructive. I have put it in the external links under Petitio Principii. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html Tex 16:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting the example 

message: The article as it stands now asserts that "begging the question" means that the question is not truly answered and thus "begs" to be.  I don't see this as agreeing with the proper Latin translation or any other source I can find.  As I understand it, the person committing the logical fallacy is also the one doing the begging.  They are, in effect, begging (or petitioning, which would be a better word) the question or principle to do something that it isn't capable of doing, i.e. prove itself correct.  I'm changing the etymology section of the intro to be consistent with Latin dictionaries and the rest of the article. (unsigned)
I think that some of the etymology I have seen here of this phrase is more of a mnemonic quality than reality-based. I am thinking especially of the "begets" phrasing that may or may not be still in the current version.
(MartinGugino 11:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Meaning of "Begging" in the original "Begging the Question" 

message: START OF DELETED TEXT// 
*It has been suggested that today's usage of the phrase "begs the question" stems from "begs" being an abbreviated form of the word "begets."  This would give the same meaning as the phrases "gives rise to the question," or "brings forth the question," where "question" is an actual question, not the argument or the proposition being discussed.
END OF DELETED TEXT//
Does anyone honestly claim that the phrase "begets the question" was ever in use? Or does anyone have any citation for this etymology?  (MartinGugino 07:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the English words "begging the question" were taken from the Latin words "petitio principii" then "beg the question" does not come from "beget the question." The Latin word "petitio" means to ask or to request. So, "petitio" means "beg (ask)." This is evident in our word "petition" which means "request." As a result, "begging the question" is derived from the ancient Latin language and its "petitio," not from the more recent English language and its "begetting."Lestrade 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text "begets" 

message: The fact that "beg" means "evade" should be made clear in the very beginning of the article. The whole rest of it makes no sense to someone who assumes, correctly, that "beg" means "plead". Actually, I don't see the dual definition clearly explained anywhere in the article.
And if the word really has both meanings, then how exactly is the modern usage incorrect? The prescriptive folks might have an argument if "beg" didn't already have the "ask/plead/implore" meaning, but it does, and that meaning is the most commonly used by far.
:The supposed etymology of the standard (i.e. "correct") use of the phrase is that it derives from "beggaring the question". I don't think anyone suggests that "beg" by itself can mean "evade", but rather that the standard meaning of the phrase is idiomatic. Cadr 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So "beg" has two meanings, then? 

message: "This usage is often sharply criticized by proponents of the traditional meaning, but it has nonetheless come into common use among the sort of nitwits who habitually mix up "it's" and "its"."
While I agree with the sentiment, and being fully aware of "What Wikipedia is not", I'm not sure an encyclopaedia should call a group of -perhaps misinformed- people "nitwits". 
Surely there's a better phrasing? I'm not sure that calling people who use improper punctuation stupid is the function of a reference page.
Hypermush 08:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "nitwit" 

message: The use of "beg the question" to mean "raise the question" instead of its proper meaning of "presuppose what is to be proved" is the result of ignorance. The speaker who misuses the phrase is simply unaware of the correct meaning of the words. This can only be corrected by education, self or formal. Therefore, due to the powerful imitative influence of television, it will probably not be corrected and its misuse will become generally accepted. Most people do not have the head for trying to understand phrases that relate to logic. The general public will use it incorrectly because it sounds unusual and striking. This is similar to the current use of "vetted out" to mean "examined."Lestrade 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and those who used "dilapidate" to mean "wear down" rather than "throw stones" are ignorant, and anybody who uses "symposium" to mean something other than "drinking party" is ignorant . . . words change and usages change.  Live with it. Slac speak up! 02:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Words change and usages change. Then everything is allowed and a word can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. In order to communicate their thoughts, people have agreed by convention that certain words will designate certain concepts. If we want to subscribe to a "change is good" attitude with regard to words, then we will be left with extreme ambiguity and, ultimately, a private language for each individual. It will be as though every statement is a code that must be broken and translated. As an example, I will end with the statement: "Sediment so gryphon won't easel in climate net." Thus, words change and usages change.  Lestrade 11:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not how usage changes, and you know it. Talking about things being "allowed" rather misses the point: how do we stop language change? The attitude displayed by some people, that all language change is a result of insufficient education, hardly stands up to analysis - how much more educated are we on average than the average speaker of Elizabethan English? And why is it that conservative linguistic forms are more frequently found in rural and out-of-the-way areas than in cosmopolitan centres?  It's not about subscribing to a "change is good" attitude: it's simply a matter of describing, analysing and living with the changes that do occur.  What you say about every statement being a "code that must be broken and translated" is fundamentally true - and what you say about convention is also true.  Language usage changes because the conventions of language users change. At any rate, this discussion has already largely taken place on this page. Slac speak up! 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Then, a person who uses the phrase "begs the question" as though it means "raises the question" is manifestly ignorant.Lestrade 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that's in all cases true, it's neither here nor there. People who say "a pea" are nearly in all cases ignorant of the fact that pease was originally a singular. I don't know what change to the article can be proposed out of this. Slac speak up! 23:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignorance

message: Coming to the end of this long discussion page, I feel the 'new usage of the word' debates have largely come to a conclusion and are no longer of much use here. They also use up the majority of the page, despite the article mainly being about logic. Since the page has now reached over 100kb, perhaps they could be grouped together and made into an archive? As I'm still a relative newbie to this process, perhaps someone more familiar with archiving could help? Richard001 23:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: I think the first example,
* Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this.
is really crummy. It can be translated to the following:
* Proposition. Only untrustworthy people would run for office.
* Proof. Politicians run for office. Politicians are untrustworthy people. Therefore, only untrustworthy people would run for office.
or
* The fact that politicians are untrustworthy people proves that only untrustworthy people would run for office.
It seems to me, if we are to mince words, that the problem is moreso that one can argue that the fact that politicians are untrustworthy (the example puts this forward as a fact) only proves that untrustworthy people win elections, and that it says nothing about who actually runs for office. And if we were to mince words some more, we can argue that trustworthy people would run for office, but simply have not. Empirically, the first sentence in the example is a hypothesis, and the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is evidence. In other words, it is not clear to me what the author was thinking when he wrote that example (and it quite frankly makes "Begging the question" seems like a while lot of nothing). Something better might be:
* Only untrustworthy people run for office. Since only untrustworthy people run for office, then all politicians are untrustworthy.
or something along those lines.
--Veg--24.91.40.69 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this one: "I know that Bill Clinton (or Pinocchio) never tells a lie. I know this because he told me so himself." Lestrade 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Example

message: I was disturbed to see a confusion between the validity and soundness of an argument in the opening sentence! : "In logic, begging the question, also known in Latin as petitio principii is an informal fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning whereby the logical structure of the argument is sound, but an unstated co-premise is false."  But if the co-premise is false, then strictly speaking, the logical structure of the argument is valid, not sound.  As a consequence, I've decided to change 'sound' to 'valid'. EmileNoldeSinclair 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great that you picked up on that, pretty damn embarrasing. Grumpyyoungman01 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  soundness and validity 

message: The articles on Wikipedia have been a Godsend for quick references and sensible, easy-to-understand explanations. The definition and description of "Begging the Question" is the exception. It is just too complex for beginners like me. I don't know what those symbols mean, or how they apply. Talk to me in words. I can do words quite well.
TWS  
(Teacher with accredited Master's degree, but not in symbolic logic)
Lee's Summit, MO
:I agree. Most of Wikipedia's logic articles are fairly poorly explained. The example arguments are poor, as well. Serious editing is definately needed. JHP 02:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think the intro has gone downhill a little in terms of clarity (and using terms - like "co-premise" - that are nonstandard even in logic doesn't help). Maybe I'll retool it sometime this weekend. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind more specifics on where it's too complex and I don't know what symbols TWS is referring to, as I don't see a single logical symbol in the entire article. PurplePlatypus 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written and assumes too much background 

message: "this article appears to contradict itself"
:Not that ironic, since begging the question is not a case of inconsistency. PurplePlatypus 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh the irony