Fallacy files begging the question

However, this is typically considered to be the incorrect usage of the term, and the way it is used in classical rhetoric and logic is seen as the correct one. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning.

In fact, the two work practically the same: in both fallacies, either part of the argument is supported by the other part, which creates a fallacious circle in reasoning.

As I mentioned, I have no hard numerical evidence to back up my claim, but I believe the postulate would prove true if studied. I'm sure there would be variance between a Harvard Campus study vs. You also make a good point about the alternative name "circular argument", or "circular reasoning", for this fallacy.

These are far better names than the traditional one, since they give an idea of the logical nature of the mistake, as well as being more memorable. What question? Moreover, "begging the question" is a poor translation of the Latin phrase "petitio principii"; a more accurate translation might be something like "requesting first principles". However, these are good arguments for dropping the phrase "begs the question" altogether, rather than using it to mean "raises the question".

It's still a puzzling phrase when used in the common newspaper sense: why "beg" the question? Why should newspaper editors use "begs" instead of the available alternatives of "raises", "suggests", or "invites" the question? At best, what started out as a misuse of logical jargon to impress the reader has turned into an idiom because neither the writer nor reader knew what the phrase meant. Perhaps saving the logical sense of "begs the question" for common use is a lost cause.

However, it may not be a hopeless cause to get people to stop using the phrase at all. Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic , 10th ed. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong. A key premise is missing, and thus the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the given premise.

One might argue that the missing premise is implied, but if one accepts that then it seems the fallacy isn't an issue so much as the strength of the implied premise.

After all, a valid argument is one in which if the premises are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. If there is only one premise and a second premise linking the first to the conclusion is missing, then it would be possible to have true premise s and a false conclusion, making the argument invalid.

On this basis I answered "False" to the above question. In that edition, as well as earlier ones that I also have, he actually defines "begging the question" as a type of valid argument p. I think that this is a mistake, but it means that the question you answered "false" would be true by definition. I think that it's a mistake to define "begging the question" as a type of valid argument because it's unnecessary, since all circular arguments are valid.

Begging the Question. Examples: 1. Thoughts are not part of the physical world, since thoughts are in their nature non-physical. Happiness is the highest good for a human being, since all other values are inferior to it. Of course smoking causes cancer. This is explained in Example 1,2,3,4.

Nonetheless, this characteristic of the fallacy is worth mentioning again. When the predicate of the subject in the conclusion is a synonym of the predicate in the premise, the same premise does not support the conclusion in no way.

As you can see, none of the examples represent statements which are false. But why do they represent a fallacy? In order to explain this, we have to call upon the almighty philosopher again, Aristotle.

Before Aristotle, knowledge was not really structured. Philosophy was blooming, science however not so much. Aristotle noticed that science needs a tool method if its goal is to gain certain knowledge. Any kind of knowledge is subject to the rules of logic. This fallacy does not have problems with the rules of logic, seeing as how it is a part of informal logic. If this tool is to be of any use, it must be applied on statements that clarify something. It makes no sense to apply the rules of logic on something if we already know it to be true or false.

This is exactly the problem with begging the question. When begging the question fallacy occurs, the argument raises a moot point. Nothing new is said, nothing is clarified.