مصادرة على مطلوب
مراجع

1 2  تعريفات الجرجاني
↑  (بالفارسية) مصادره - لغت نامه دهخدا
↑  Liberman، Mark (29 أبريل 2010). "'Begging the question': we have answers". Language Log. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-05-16. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2012-01-12.
↑  Kretzmann، N.؛ Stump، E. (1988). Logic and the Philosophy of Language. The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts. Cambridge University Press. ج. Volume 1. ص. 374. ISBN:978-0521280631. LCCN:87030542. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2020-05-31. One sort of petitio is common, and another is dialectical; but common petitio is not relevant here. A dialectical petitio is an expression that insists that in the disputation some act must be performed with regard to the statable thing [at issue]. For example, "I require (peto) you to respond affirmatively to 'God exists,'" and the like. And petitio obligates [the respondent] to perform an action with regard to the obligatum, while positio obligates [him] only to maintain [the obligatum]; and in this way petitio and positio differ. {{استشهاد بكتاب}}: |المجلد= يحوي نصًّا زائدًا (مساعدة)
↑  Welton (1905), 279., "Petitio principii is, therefore, committed when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."
1 2  Davies (1915), 572.
↑  Welton (1905), 280–282.
↑  In موليير's المريض الوهمي, a quack "answers" the question of "Why does أفيون cause sleep?" with "Because of its منوم power." In the original:  Mihi a docto doctore / Demandatur causam et rationem quare / Opium facit dormire. / A quoi respondeo, / Quia est in eo / Vertus dormitiva, / Cujus est natura / Sensus assoupire. Le Malade imaginaire in French Wikisource نسخة محفوظة 14 فبراير 2009 على موقع واي باك مشين.
↑  Welton (1905), 281.
↑  Kahane and Cavender (2005), 60.
↑  Herrick (2000) 248.
↑  Gibson (1908), 291.
↑  ريتشارد هويتلي, Elements of Logic (1826) quoted in Gibson (1908), 291.
↑  Bradley Dowden, "Fallacies" in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. نسخة محفوظة 10 يونيو 2019 على موقع واي باك مشين.
↑  "Fallacy". موسوعة بريتانيكا. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2015-04-28. Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.
↑  Walton, Douglas (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. SUNY Press. ص. 206–207. ISBN:978-0791411575. Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.
↑  The reason petitio principii is considered a fallacy is not that the استدلال (بحث علمي) is invalid (because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but that the argument can be deceptive. A statement cannot prove itself. A premiss [ك‍] must have a different source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth from that of the conclusion: Lander University, "Petitio Principii". نسخة محفوظة 27 مارس 2019 على موقع واي باك مشين.
↑  Dowden، Bradley (27 مارس 2003). "Fallacies". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-06-10. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2012-04-05.
↑  Nolt، John Eric؛ Rohatyn، Dennis؛ Varzi، Achille (1998). Schaum's Outline of Theory and Problems of Logic. McGraw-Hill Professional. ص. 205. ISBN:978-0070466494.
↑  Meyer، M. (1988). Questions and Questioning. Foundations of Communication. W. de Gruyter. ص. 198–199. ISBN:978-3110106800. LCCN:lc88025603. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-12-17.
↑  Walton، D.N. (1989). Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument. Cambridge University Press. ص. 36–37. ISBN:978-0521379250. LCCN:88030762. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2014-01-01.
↑  H.W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Entry for ignoratio elenchi.
↑  "beg the question". Collins Cobuild Advanced English Dictionary online, accessed on 2019-05-13 نسخة محفوظة 13 مايو 2019 على موقع واي باك مشين.
1 2 3  "Beg the Question" (بالإنجليزية). Archived from the original on 2019-03-27. Retrieved 2018-11-03.
↑  Alexander Clark, Delma Singma, Jeroen Albers, Katherine Evans, Zachary Yozamp, Casey Martin, Jason Brown, and Rosanne Haggerty (2019): "Flat Leadership". NY Times in Education, accessed on 2019-05-13 نسخة محفوظة 12 أكتوبر 2018 على موقع واي باك مشين.
↑  "beg the question" Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus online, accessed on 2019-05-13 نسخة محفوظة 13 مايو 2019 على موقع واي باك مشين.
↑  Garner، B.A. (1995). Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford University Press. ص. 101. ISBN:978-0195142365. LCCN:95003863. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2020-01-29. begging the question does not mean "evading the issue" or "inviting the obvious questions," as some mistakenly believe. The proper meaning of begging the question is "basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself." The formal name for this logical fallacy is petitio principii. Following are two classic examples: "Reasonable men are those who think and reason intelligently." Patterson v. Nutter, 7 A. 273, 275 (Me. 1886). (This statement begs the question, "What does it mean to think and reason intelligently?")/ "Life begins at conception! [Fn.: 'Conception is defined as the beginning of life.']" Davis v. Davis, unreported opinion (Cir. Tenn. Eq. 1989). (The "proof"—or the definition—is circular.)
↑  Houghton Mifflin Company (2005). The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. ص. 56. ISBN:978-0618604999. LCCN:2005016513. مؤرشف من الأصل في 2020-01-29. Sorting out exactly what beg the question means, however, is not always easy—especially in constructions such as beg the question of whether and beg the question of how, where the door is opened to more than one question. [...] But we can easily substitute evade the question or even raise the question, and the sentence will be perfectly clear, even though it violates the traditional usage rule.
↑  Brians, Common Errors in English Usage: Online Edition (full text of book: 2nd Edition, November 2008, William, James & Company)  (accessed 1 July 2011) نسخة محفوظة 22 أبريل 2017 على موقع واي باك مشين.
↑  Follett (1966), 228; Kilpatrick (1997); Martin (2002), 71; Safire (1998).
↑  42 Fallacies - Free eBook نسخة محفوظة 04 نوفمبر 2017 على موقع واي باك مشين.
↑  كتاب "المغالطات المنطقية"، تأليف: عادل مصطفى
بوابة فلسفة
بوابة منطق