Talk:Begging the question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Begging the question article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

Contents

[edit] Regardless of the Phrase...

These worlds still have the ability to retain their original meaning. You understand "Begs the question," just as well as, "demands the inquiry." The usage itself is not wrong. It may alway make someone sound uneducated as it is often used in an argument abusively; however, the words still retain their original meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.135 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Vicious Circle

I believe that a vicious circle is NOT begging the question...vicious circles are when something leads to another and so on until its a complete circle, each time worsening the effect. 69.141.165.175 23:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Wikiwikiwakoo

I am going to have to disagree with you there Wikiwikiwakoo. At least in philosophy departments (where fallacy and logic courses are taught), a vicious circle is just when you beg the question. There need not be any worsening of the effect. - Atfyfe 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? Do you have any citations to support that? I mean, it's certainly likely someone somewhere has used the phrase in this way but it's not the normal English idiom 87.127.95.194 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circular Logic or Reasoning

I was forwarded to "Begging the question" from "Circular logic." "Begging the question" is an example of "Circular logic" and not vice versa. Therefore "Circular logic" should be the top level reference since it states the reasoning that the "Begging the question" author is trying to make in regard to rhetoric. There is ALSO an aspect of "Begging the question" that is NOT rhetoric and therefore to act like "Circular logic" refers to "Begging the question" is inaccurate. How do we go about "unforwarding" Circular_logic and enabling its own entry? Also, "Circular argument" would be a SUBSET of "Circular logic."

Circular logic is a logical error caused by first making some assumption that can't be or hasn't yet been proven true, then, on the basis of that assumption deriving some result that is then used to prove that the first assumption is true.

or

Circular Reasoning is a use of reason in which the premise depends upon or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called [circular logic] -- ref: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circular%20reasoning

-- PiPhD 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The varieties of Circular Reasoning include Begging the Question, but are not limited to it. Either there should be a Circular Reasoning article with a short section about Begging the Question, or there should separate articles for each. -- fosley 131.50.151.8 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hah

In see also it references the page "circular argument" which redirects back to begging the question O_o

[edit] citation

How would you go about citing the source of basic logic? While you could cite the history and human development of the idea, and commentary on it, the logic itself is a priori. I will see if I can round up a few sources, and then remove the tag. Jerimee 03:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Any logic textbook would do. Aroundthewayboy 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] switching to examples that meet NPOV?

Using statements related to a religion as examples of a fallacy seems rather needlessly offensive, no matter how standard the example may be.

How about "A fossil of organism C is an evolutionary descendant of a fossil of organism A, therefore there is a missing link organism B". Evolutionary descent presupposes the missing link, and the missing link presupposes evolutionary descent.

It's true that the theory of evolutionary descent presupposes the missing link, but the missing like doesn't presuppose anything because it's an inanimate object. This isn't an example of begging the question. The logical structure is simply "If C is descended from A, and the theory of evolutionary descent is true, it follows that there must be a missing link B"; there's no circularity. Cadr 12:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha. That's the ticket. Wikipedia is not censored to keep from offending religious sensibilities. IvoShandor 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

True but I think it is a point worth making that there is an over-abundant representation of examples of this fallacy purportedly used by religious people in support of a pro-religious position. That stood out to me quite strongly in the article and the implication being subtly given is that religious people are more likely to make such fallacious statements in support of their view compared to the anti-religious in support of theirs (whether or not this is the case in practice is POV and irrelevant to the article). I do not believe Wikipedia should be censored to protect religious sensibilities but perhaps a NPOV would be more served by a providing a more varied set of examples not involving religion or perhaps an example of an anti-religious person using a petitio principii argument to support an anti-religious position? (not looking for a argument supporting or decrying religion/non-religion here). 62.31.116.126 16:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I sort of expected conversational examples under the "Examples" header. I don't see any examples of the English phrase, "begging the question". 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contested?

Precisely how can the use of a phrase or word be contested? It's either used or not used, right? It's not as if there are some language police going around labeling improper use. I don't think this information is relevant at all. Just my opinion. IvoShandor 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people contest whether it is a correct usage. There is a link cited in the article. It is simply a fact that it is contested, and an important fact about the phrase that deserves more emphasis than it gets in the current article. This isn't a prescriptive/descriptive issue. Descriptive linguistics doesn't mean you ignore whether a usage is considered acceptable in certain settings. The Wikipedia article on prescription says:

"a descriptive linguist working in English would describe the word ain't in terms of usage, distribution, and history, observing both the growth in its popularity but also the resistance to it in some parts of the language community."

Virtually the same thing can be said here. The "modern usage" has grown in popularity in recent years, but it is still considered wrong by many. If you say it in a room full of pedants or logicians you will be laughed at. If the article omits this information it is neither prescribing nor describing, it is just ignoring what is arguably the most salient fact about the article's topic.

In line with this reasoning, I have added a sentence under the "Modern usage" heading noting the dispute about the new usage's status. (I'm the anonymous edit.) I have also changed the section heading to "Contested modern usage." I don't think this should be controversial. The introduction mentions that the usage is contested. Anything that deserves mention in the introduction deserves at least a sentence in the body, right?Lhuman 21:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the various opinions, and finding *several* cites in idiomatic dictionaries for 'invites the question', I'm not comfortable with the 3rd paragraph's 'incorrectly': '...phrase is often incorrectly used to mean "suggests the question"'.

Along that same line, this idiomatic use seems free to have *nothing* to do with the fallacy of many questions. I can say something that invites a single obvious question without it triggering a logical fallacy. For example, a slashdot story that brought me here used 'begs the question' w/r/t a security vendor spokesman saying that the existence of encrypted was evidence of wrongdoing. The article continued: "That begs the question: if one cloaks data by encrypting it, exactly what incriminating evidence does that provide?" See, not much in the way a fallacy of many questions. 24.116.168.239 03:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There may not be a language police, but there has to be an agreement on definitions for words. In order to communicate, humans have created signs that represent concepts. These signs are words. Said humans have to agree by convention on the meanings of words. If they don't agree, they can't communicate their concepts with to other. Everyone would be speaking as in secret codes that are undecipherable. When the phrase "beg the question" was created, it was agreed that it would mean "assume what is to be proved." If, through carelessness or ignorance, it is used to designate other concepts, then it will be violating the original conventional agreement. If such violations are allowed, in general, then communication will be difficult and will result in misunderstandings.Lestrade 15:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
Agreement is based on whichever meanings are currently accepted. Your snobbery and completely ill-informed grasp of the concept of language is really annoying. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If a person misuses a phrase he's heard without understanding what it means, it isn't "snobbery" to point out that he's incorrect. Neither is it "snobbery" to point out that a hundred people are emulating his mistake. Please refrain from personal attacks. 216.52.69.217 17:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It is snobbery to assume, when millions use a phrase in a different way than you understand it, that what they are saying is somehow "wrong". Word meanings change all the time. (What's even worse was that diatribe on the meaning of language--that bit starting with "In order to communicate, humans have created signs that represent concepts. These signs are words." You don't think that was some of the snobbiest stuff you've ever read? Oh wait, of course not; wasn't it you who wrote that?) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact, no, it wasn't. But it's charming how you pile assuming bad faith on top of your personal attacks. 216.52.69.217 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry then. See, that comment that I had left (the "snobbery" one) was up there for a month and a half, and then suddenly within 32 minutes both Lestrade and an anonymous author replied to it. I suppose you'll claim coincidence. I highly doubted that. Perhaps you and he just happened to see it at virtually the exact same time (one of the biggest givaways to sock puppetry). If that happens to be the case and, astonishingly enough, Lestrade has no connection with you, then I apologize. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Matt Yeager:

In my circle of acquaintances, it is currently accepted that snobbery means the same as understated, ill–informed means knowledgeable, and annoying means instructive. As you know, the concept of language contains the notion that language incessantly develops and changes in accordance with the needs of those who use it. As a result, your posting is understood as follows:

Agreement is based on whichever meanings are currently accepted. Your understated and completely knowledgeable grasp of the concept of language is really instructive.

Lestrade 18:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Hmm, if only it were possible for you to show by using verifiable sources that what you said was true, and that it wasn't the result of your own original research! Then you might be comparing apples to apples. But you're not. There are countless uses, as I'm sure you're aware, of "begging the question" to mean "suggesting the question". (I could source them if you'd like, but I assume you're aware of the situation.) That's the difference. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice trick there moving from requiring of Lestrade "sources", but for yourself merely requiring widespread "uses". Can you find one reputable source that defines "begging the question" the way you want it to mean? one that doesn't simultaneously point out that such usage is incorrect? Charles (Kznf) 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a perfectly fair thing for you to ask me. It took less than a minute to find this page which quotes the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms, which I hope you would consider "reputable". (Look under the second listing for "beg the question", under the horizontal line.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The phrase now has two meanings. In logic we say you beg the question when you assume your conclusion (or a consequence of your conclusion) to make an argument for your conclusion. In ordinary conversation, however, people often say "which begs the question..." when some issue raises a question. - Atfyfe 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of Entry has declined substantially

Please review this earlier revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Begging_the_question&oldid=13373446

Many change to the article have been made since then, some of which do not read very smoothly in my opinion. Before going further though, I'd like to hear some feedback from other people comparing the article now versus two years ago. --71.156.64.23 18:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above user. The earlier article is much better... I came here looking for a definition of "beg the question" and the earlier article makes a much more clear explanation. Especially the examples... I actually suspect the current article has been subject to some rather sophisticated pranking... come on, a technical logic circuit situation concerning a "bistable multivibrator" is used as the only example of this common phrase??? Someone has been having some fun.

I am not an expert in this subject, but please, someone revert to the earlier version and work from there. StrangeAttractor 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article so that their is a reliable source for the definition of begging the question. I also slightly modified the first defintion of it given and provided an extended using a quote from the book I used as a source. Please tell me if what I did makes the reading even more akward. Thanks.Sikvod00 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof by contradiction

Note that if the logical process of petitio principii is followed through and results in a contradiction, then this is a valid disproof of the premise(s), see proof by contradiction. Worth mentioning? Robin S 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mims song

Fly is a slang term for a lot more than "good". Fly implies "hip", "cool", "good looking", and many additional things. So I think this is a poor example of circular reasoning.

163.181.251.10 19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)mm

[edit] A Way Out

How can the current trend toward misusing this phrase be accepted? Some people stubbornly claim that the original and correct meaning is "to assume what you are trying to prove." Meanwhile, everyone in the media is using it to mean "raise the question." The media are very powerful due to the tendency of humans to imitate what they see and hear. Eventually, everyone will use the phrase to mean "raise the question" and very few will use it to mean "assume what you are trying to prove." Therefore, the solution to the problem is to label the original and correct meaning as archaic. In that way, it will be considered to be antiquated, old–fashioned, uncool, unhip, fuddy–duddy, pedantic, quaint, and, like, square. The new, media–driven meaning, "raise the question," will be so, you know, like, "today." Other euphemistic adjectives are classic and legacy. They might be preferred to archaic, which could be a difficult adjective for many people.Lestrade 12:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

The original meaning is certainly not archaic, and I doubt it will be, as it is a technical term which is still often used (although not as much, perhaps, as the other meaning). At any rate, this article should be about the technical meaning because wikipedia is not a dictionary - only the technical meaning is worthy of an encyclopedia article. john k 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase is commonly used *both* ways, and we should treat both as correct. - Atfyfe 06:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So the standard of correctness is common use. This is true democracy. The original and conventional meaning of a word can be incorrect if the word is commonly used to designate any other concept. How is common use measured and understood? Is it the common use by a minimum number of people? Is it the common use by people in a certain geographical area? Is it the common use by people who are in a certain social or economic class? Is it the common use by whoever is speaking on television or writing on an Internet 'blog? Dictionaries will have to be revised often in order to stay current with vague, nebulous common usage. Who will be appointed to administer the new meanings that are determined by common use? This would be the equivalent of everyone having their own language and also of talking in code. It would be the responsibility of the hearer to decode the words that are used by the speaker.Lestrade 12:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Lestrade


Alternatively, the contest of usage can be seen as a need by "experts" of a subject-matter (logic) to extend their jargon (i.e. discursive control) into other fields of study (linguistics). While "begging the question" is used to name a particular type of logical fallacy, the phrase itself is both syntactically and semantically correct, suggesting the contested usage is perfectly appropriate. This is quite distinct from "prescription", as there is no claim on the logician's part to linguistics expertise. Contrast the usage of "from the heart" with a strictly medical interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.118.211 (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The examples, aren't.

Please. If you're going to show examples of "begging the question" in proper use, then at least form them so that they may stand recognizably on their own.

I agree. There is only one example, and it isn't very good. Surely we can do better. john k 02:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


I found the smoking example exceptionally poor. "a smoker can quit: all he needs is willpower and a desire to quit!" That isn't a logical argument. The first statement is saying a smoker can quit, and the following says how. Not an example of 'begging the question'. I mean if I said, "You can go hiking, all you need are boots and the desire!", that doesn't work at all as an example of begging the question. Guldenat 18:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that the original answer to "why did the chicken cross the road" is probably one of the simplest and most widely understood examples of begging the question. 203.113.237.179 01:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We date a named geologic strata, such as Cambrian, by the fossils it contains. However, we also date the fossils by the geologic strata in which they were found. That is a famous example of circular reasoning most of us no longer notice.Traumatic (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Give up

In today's climate of surrender and submission, why don't we surrender and submit to the overwhelming power of the mass media and the vast illiteracy and ignorance of the current populace? From now on, beg the question will mean raise the question. It will no longer mean assume what is to be proven, as it originally meant for those quaint, old–fashioned ancients. Let's just say that language has evolved, developed, advanced, improved, grown. The latest is the greatest. This begs the question: "Is this progress or corruption?" Lestrade 19:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Oh yes! Abolish the concept by changing the meaning of the phrase that named it. An improved approach to implementing Newspeak. Go, go, go! Snezzy 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If we agree with philosopher Ernest Nagel, we will conclude that beg the question means raise the question, not presuppose what is to be proved. According to him, "…an account of the historical development of a term is no substitute for an analysis of its current uses or function…." ("Psychology and the Analysis of Concepts in Use"). The history of the term does not matter as much as an understanding of the way that it is currently used. The overwhelming misuse of the term in the mass media, especially television, has resulted in an acceptance of its meaning as raise the question. Young people who will hear only this meaning from childhood will not understand the original meaning of presuppose what is to be proved. People who know the correct meaning will eventually die out and that meaning will be relegated to "that great dustheap called 'history' " (Augustine Birrell). When all of the celebrities, stars, and "cool" people are saying begs the question when they mean raises the question, then the proper and correct usage will be seen as a vestige from those dark, ancient times when English teachers and people who read books spoke their quaint, old–fashioned language. Therefore, it is futile to oppose the effect of the mass media on language in this case. This trend is abetted by the adherents of "living language" who contend that language is not fixed, but is always changing and developing (but not necessarily progressing).Lestrade 18:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I propose then that we start saying, "Employs a circular argument," every time we intend to say, "Raises the question." Why let those who want to sound pompous by using words they don't understand have all the fun? They use DISCOMFITURE when they mean DISCOMFORT. Let's start our own campaign of reverse mis-usage. See, we'll employ a circular argument [sic] about who's in charge, anyways [sic]. Sick? Yes. Sic? Glorious Monday! Dodgson rules! Snezzy 04:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't bother proposing it... that's the way the English-speaking world works these days. "Circular logic/reasoning/arguments" are how we tend to refer to this concept (EDIT: that is, of "begging the question") anymore. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say apart from that. Really. Genuinely. No idea. (And, as an aside, if it weren't for that truly bizarre tone he's taking on, Lestrade's comment would be completely accurate.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That begs the question, "Why not let any word mean anything that we want it to mean?" Freedom now! If we were all free to assign our own meanings to words, then everyone could say, with user Matt Yeager ♫ , "I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say" and feel good about it. We should all start begging questions about the repressive authorities who prevent us from exercising our rights. Everyone should have their own meanings for words without having to feel discomfort or discomfiture.Lestrade 13:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

(unindent)Hate to say it guys, but the talk pages are for improving articles not general discussion about topics, or sarcastic comments that just prove we know more than everybody. ;) Which we obviously do. Woot.IvoShandor 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The above comments are related to the article's "Contested modern usage" section and are not a mere attempt to "prove we know more than everybody." What does "woot" mean?Lestrade 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
Thing is, does he mean prove as in show to be true, or prove as in test? (And by thing, do I mean problem, or the original meaning of high council meeting?) See, words can change meaning gradually, but changing the meaning of a phrase like "begs the question" is partly a function of ignorance, and partly its poor rendition in Modern English. While "beg" had that meaning when the phrase was coined, it has lost it since. Nowadays, rather than use an obscure meaning of "beg", it would be better to say "taking the premise for granted" and stop encouraging people to use the original translation, whether correctly or incorrectly.--Rfsmit (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Television

It must be obvious to even the most obtuse and inattentive viewer that the power of television to change language and behavior is overwhelming. It is very common to hear people on television use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question." It seems to be increasing with time. This begs the question: "Why would anyone want to oppose an overwhelming power?" In return, this begs the answer: "Some people give themselves pain and aggravation by not simply succumbing to such a mighty medium." With all of this begging, we should be glad that we will not be there to see all of the future generations whose inquisitiveness will beg an infinite number of questions, to which there may be no answers.Lestrade 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

"Begging the question" is a useful term in technical discussions of logic, and it is certainly still used in that context, even if it is also used to mean "raise the question". Even by your own claims, you are only making the case that there are two correct meanings to the phrase, not that the original meaning is obsolete - it is still in quite common use in many contexts (for instance, the phrase "question-begging" is generally only used to refer to the correct/original sense). Even if both meanings are considered correct, only one - a technical term in logic - deserves an encyclopedia article. The other is simply a phrase in spoken language. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. john k 17:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applied logic

Since language is always changing and developing (progressing), and it can be agreed that any word can mean anything, I suggest the following. A male who meets a female who has well–formed formulæ (wffs) may proposition her. In his mind, he may want a logical connective by arranging for a binary relation. A good first step is to beg the question of her name, in order to establish a friendly relationship. Logically, he may be fortunate to change the modality of the situation from possible to actual.Lestrade (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Reverted it back two years.

Abusing WP:Be_bold here, but I think the present article was so confusing we'll all be better off if we start from the article way back. Edit: Aaaaand sigging. 87.94.56.129 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I liked the fuller discussion of the previous entry. It seemed appropriate for an encyclopedia, whereas this seems like a stub.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

this article does not have any references. please find some. --70.74.80.112 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy" is overused

TIMEZONE

My objections to this article begin here in the first paragraph:

There is controversy over the modern everyday usage of to beg the question--meaning to pose the question...

The words "the modern everyday usage" imply that this is what is currently used and that the other meaning is archaic. This is not the case in my experience. I'm in my 40s and I grew up hearing, reading, and using the expression as defined in the other sense, meaning "this assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that the issue is resolved already". It's only in the last few years that I began to notice scattered misuses of the phrase in the "this raises the question" sense, the first of these was by a foreign-born speaker of English so I just assumed that this was why.

Later in the Wiki article we have this:

Modern Controversy
More recently, to beg the question has been used as a synonym for "to raise the question", or to indicate that "the question really ought to be addressed".

Again, "More recently... ...has been used..." implies that this is the more "modern" definition. I disagree. I tried to edit this latter entry but not sure if it worked. There seems to be no link to edit the above entry, not sure why.

There's nothing amiss about including "A number of people have begun to use the phrase to mean nearly the opposite of what it has always meant." However the implication that this is the "modern" definition and that the other is just used by a few academics or archaics is simply false. It all smacks of the ID issue a little to me, the need to present any fringe POV as half of a "controversy". Some people have begun using the phrase backwards, this doesn't mean it's a controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.198.222 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody fix this

  • If Paul speaks he is telling the truth.
  • Paul is speaking.
  • Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.

This can't be a correct example of begging the question. It reduces to:

  • If A then B
  • A
  • -> B

A happens to equal "Paul speaks" and B = "Paul tells the truth", but speaking and telling the truth are indeed generally two entirely different things, so that doesn't matter - the point is this is a standard syllogistic form and if it suffers from begging the question then so must every syllogism. Perhaps they do by definition? I don't know - I'm not down with this stuff technically - but I somewhat doubt it. What would be the point in inventing a fallacy category and equating it to a standard (indeed, arguably the archetypal) logical form? Or perhaps begging the question means instead to simply doubt ANY premise of ANY argument? It wouldn't seem so from the gist of the rest of the article, though. I think this is probably just a bad example. Can somebody fix it? 67.193.45.166 (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)G

[edit] Example of "begging the question" v. "viciously circular"

In speaking about reliabilist theories of knowledge in his book The Price of Doubt (2001), N.M.L. Nathan uses both 'begging the question' and 'viciously circular' in the same paragraph. I thought having an example of these two phrases actually being used in a work of contemporary philosophy might be helpful for the authors of this article:

As numerous writers have insisted, Induction itself could then be the reliable process which non-accidentally generates the true belief in the reliability of Induction. From

   (4) So far, most inductive arguments with true premises have had true conclusions

he could infer

   (5) Most inductive arguments with true premises have true conclusions.

The argument '(4), so (5)' is doubtless question-begging. Anyone who considered this argument and who was doubtful about the truth of (5) would thereby be made equally doubtful about the truth of the conditional 'If (4) then (5)'. [...] Though question-begging, '(4), so (5)' is not viciously circular in the sense that 'its conclusion is contained among its premises', or in the sense that 'a necessary condition of using it to gain knowledge of (or justified belief in) its conclusion is that one already have knowledge of (or justified belief in) its conclusion'.

- Atfyfe (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cites support calling it incorrect

From the cited Times article, "[t]o use to beg the question as a synonym for to call for the question is a mistake." Please don't revert my edit again, that messes up the citations I fixed. Ariadne55 (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Sorry I wasn't looking at that citation however that doesn't mean it's correct. The next sentence of your quote is, "Why? It's a mistake because it is in error. (That's begging the question.)" The fact that you cite this as evidence is silly as it is an example of the logical fallacy that "begging the question," describes. It has NO proper support. For a proper citation that a usage is incorrect you would need a linguist. The Rev. here is failing to consider the fact that while the phrase does have the logic related meaning, it can have two independent meanings that are both equally correct. This citation does not support that the other usage is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.135 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your revert messed up the cites I had just fixed. You could have edited the parts you disagreed with or copied the corrected cites into your edit.
The Safire article discusses the origins of the phrase and refutes the common usage argument. He spends several paragraphs explaining the correct usage and refuting the idea that frequent misuse can transform a mistake into a secondary meaning. His joke about why the misuse is wrong has the effect of repeating his primary point: that using "begs the questiong" to mean "prompts the question" is a mistake. Ariadne55 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Declaring that my words are "weasel words" isn't an argument and doesn't make them wrong. Please refrain from backhanded insults. My purpose is to make someone who comes to check this article aware of the fact that it is NOT agreed upon, like described in the last paragraph of the "World Wide Words" post.
It is quite clear that the Safire article is not definitive and is little more than his own opinion. Citing a meaning to a word is NOT an argument against other meanings. In addition, including a strawman argument that "common usage is correct because it's common usage," is improper reasoning as well.
Also see the talk section below —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.151.156 (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


As far as providing citations is concerned, please ensure that it is not done selectively. The fact that one writer (or group) has a noted opinion about usage should be tempered by the consensus of that community (eg - what do most language experts believe). If there are divergent opinions, the prevalent and widely supported ones (based on peer-reviewed research) should be indicated in the article.
In this case, there are two different groups - one that maintains that "begging the question" used in the sense "raises a question" is incorrect, and the other that maintains that common usage indicates a shift in definition of how the phrase is used. Both are valid, and both should be represented here. Citations for both views are welcome.
If a citation is presented, it should be done in a neutral tone, though it can indicate the bias of the source. For example, this is not a neutral tone:
“ More recently, "to beg the question" has been incorrectly used by some as a synonym for "to raise the question", ”
because it implies that Wikipedia's editorial position is that the usage is incorrect, which is against NPOV guidelines. This is more acceptable:
“ Some linguists view as incorrect the usage of "to beg the question" as a synonym for "to raise the question". ”
I hope the distinction is clear. This would be followed by appropriate citations, and the alternative view of other liguists. Of course, you may modify the above to remove weasel words like "some", but the general point remains. Mindmatrix 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Individual meanings of the individual words

Regardless of the phrase these worlds still have the ability to retain their original meaning. You understand "Begs the question," just as well as, "demands the inquiry." The usage itself is not wrong. It may alway make someone sound uneducated as it is often used in an argument abusively; however, the words still retain their original meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.135 (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs some major surgery; no reference to contemporary philosophic usage!

This article needs some major surgery (particularly as it has been referenced in a few recent newspaper columns). The main source of the confusion seems to be a lack of ANY reference to the contemporary philosophical usage!!! There should be a breakdown into the three usages of "begging the question":

1) The traditional aristotelian usage, now mainly obsolete (a circular argument) 2) The contemporary philosophical usage (an argument depending on a contestable premise, similar but *not identical* to the fallacy of many questions) 3) The erroneous folk-usage of simply "raising a question"

While there is reference to (1) and (3), (2) seems mostly missing from the article, although one of the reference (Skeptic dictionary) emphasises the contemporary philosophical usage of (2). In this article, the contemporary usage of QB (2) is wrongly conflated with the fallacy of many question. But "many questions" is only marginally related to QB. The description of the many questions fallacy in this article is actually an example of the contemporary usage of QB rather than of the many questions fallacy.

Also, since this article refers to a philosophical term, it needs reference to more academic discussion on this topic; for instance John Woods "Begging the Question is not a fallacy" http://www.johnwoods.ca/Begging%20the%20Question%20is%20Not%20a%20Fallacy.pdf

Anyone wishing to comment please first read the above reference (Woods).Joncolvin (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Lestrade, please stop

You're adding unsourced, POV claims, and disrupting the wiki, reverting changes that have nothing to do with the point you are trying to prove while you're at it. I stress that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. It is not a platform to promote ideas of how things should be. Wipe (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circular reasoning is an informal fallacy

I could be wrong, but I think that circular reasoning (and begging the question, since I'm not sure there is a distinction between the two) is an example of an informal fallacy, not a logical fallacy as was asserted in this article. To help illustrate my point, arguments of the form "P, therefore P" (circular arguments) are actually valid, since the conclusion is true whenever the premise(s) is true (the definition of validity.) In contrast, arguments of the form "If P then Q, Q, therefore P" are an example of a logical fallacy, since all of the premises may be true and the conclusion still false.

Bd1887 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I remove the code <ref>[http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50019564?query_type=word&queryword=begging&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=70aG-OepAIa-8279&hilite=50019564 The Oxford English Dictionary]</ref> as it jumped to a subscription required page and not a page of information relevant to the article. A better link can surely be found. user:pbhj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.192.228 (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)