This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Begging the question article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Currently, the article claims "The phrase "begs the question" is also commonly used in an entirely unrelated way to mean "prompts a question" or "raises a question", although such usage is sometimes disputed.[4]" This sounds like the cited reference from The Guardian provides evidence that "begs the question" is NOT used as "raise the question". However, the reference provides evidence, that "begs the question" is only rarely used as a fallacy and MOSTLY used as "raise the question". Thus, the change 20:26, 29 November 2023 is correct. Why was it reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:4485:7DA0:C42F:502B:E1F8:85A8 ( talk)
I agree with 92.22.149.83's 12/9/20 removal of the bad example about "Hero Man". The problem is that it is germane to the paragraph (and Herrick quote) following it, which made no sense after this less than ideal example was removed and not replaced with a better one. And I find that following paragraph quite helpful, and completely confusing the way it was left incorrectly referencing what was meant to be a valid counterexample to begging the question (and incidentally unnecessary in my opinion.)
I just found and added what I think is a reasonable example to support the paragraph that follows it that is an example listed in Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap. Came upon the exmaple via a nice ThoughtCo article on the subject. Jeff Axelrod ( talk) 05:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Rather than perpetuating the mistake, shouldn't this article be titled "assuming the initial point" with a note that it is often mistranslated as "begging the question"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.146.26 ( talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit by another editor was reverted with the explanation "POV". Quite by coincidence, I made almost the same edit. The original edit was correct and should have stood. The "POV" comment is bizarre. Anyone with any powers of observation can be in no doubt that in everyday English "beg the question" is almost always used with the "incorrect" meaning. Most people have no knowledge of the "correct" meaning. 86.129.206.245 ( talk) 01:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
About the only thing I get out of this article is that no-one can explain what "begging the question" actually means. The examples are painfully unclear, the writing muddy, and the writers/editors of this article seem absolutely determined to expound on their arcane knowledge without ever getting to the point.
This article probably needs to be blown up and restarted from scratch. At the very least, someone needs to come up with a simple, clear set of examples for what this phrase meant in its classic sense. I mean, it sure beats me. I read the article, and I still don't know. No wonder the modern meaning is completely trouncing the older one -- even its defenders can't coherently explain it! 70.27.3.143 ( talk) 03:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The example relating to paranormal activity is clearly erroneous in my opinion as the writer of the passage assumed that a person needs to assume that paranormal activity is real in order to conclude that he has experienced a paranormal activity (and therefore infer that paranormal activity is real), which is not the case. The writer stated "something must be real for it to be experienced" as a part of his explanation, but the statement is of nothing more than the reason that a person who thinks he has experienced paranormal activity can logically infer that paranormal activity is real. I have decided to delete this example from the page. 134.87.133.113 ( talk) 04:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The article claims that:
"To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments."
is a fallacy because the second clause is just a restatement of the first clause. I don't agree. The first clause talks about the the advantage to the State, while the second clause talks about advantage to the community. A state is not the same thing as a community. There is, to be sure, a hidden premise: that things which are advantageous to communities are also advantageous to states, and one could quibble about that. But if the listener accepts that premise as plausible, then there is no fallacy in the statement. 185.121.6.44 ( talk) 13:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
How about "pretends to demonstrate what it already assumes"? 96.248.101.32 ( talk) 03:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)DeMikeal Brown
This is confusing to read:
All birds that are black are ravens; therefore, all birds that are not ravens are not black.
We should also include an example which has a *true* premise:
Asia is the largest continent; therefore, Asia has the largest area of any continent.
To ensure we don't mislead the reader into thinking "begging the question" necessarily means false premise.
Mateen Ulhaq ( talk) 12:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The way the example is now stated doesn't really fit. The line is now:
Asia is not the smallest continent because it has the largest area of any continent.
But this does not align with the conclusion:
[...] assuming the initial premise to be correct also means assuming the conclusion is correct.
One can assume Asia is not the smallest without therefore assuming the it has the largest area.
ZAD-Man ( talk) 22:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"Begs the question" is always used incorrectly because nobody knows what it really means. 205.142.232.18 ( talk) 21:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The description of the "classical" meaning is so confusig that now I wonder whether even Aristotle knew what he meant for it.
The "modern" meaning is very clear, but mostly thanks to the example given. Why not give a couple of examples for the "classical" one too, before trying to explain the concept in abstract and full generality? That is a basic teaching technique...
To be most effective, the "question" of the example should be something that the reader has no way to know whether it is true or false; and the argument should have three or four steps.
--
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
10:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"Prescriptivist grammarians and people versed in philosophy, logic, and law object to such usage as incorrect or, at best, unclear. This is because, it is claimed, the classical sense of Aristotelian logic is the correct one."
Does this sentence at the end of the article beg the question, or am I just confused? LouMichel ( talk) 23:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The ‘new’ usage does not arise from any fresh approach to rhetoric, but sheer ignorance, the misapplication of a precise term due to faulty understanding, or lazy learning. Like using ‘problematical’ to mean ‘difficult’ or ‘troublesome’.
‘I’m like really hungry and thirsty and stuff but I like left my wallet at home, so, yeah, that like begs the question of how I’m like gonna pay to eat and stuff. So, yeaahhhhhhhh…’ is a current misusage couched in a knucklehead idiom. -- 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:A533:3726:4EB6:E1FC ( talk) 09:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Please see my comment in the "Incorrect" post above.
Regarding the question of whether it is correct to say begs the question when you mean something like calls for the question to be asked and dealt with: It seems best answered by examples of modern (so-called "incorrect") usage, which I hear just about every day on news programs, juxtaposed to former usages in rhetoric and argumentation which were in fact correct by the understanding of those users.
As far as whether the transitive form of the verb does NOT encompass begging [for] a thing, I agree that it is true in the majority of cases but think that the usage can be more elastic: "I am thirsty. I beg water of you." You could argue that it is more proper to phrase it differently ("I beg a man for water.") but the first example seems idiomatic enough, though a little old fashioned. In the first, "water" is the direct object while in the second "a man" is the direct object. Perhaps more examples of parallel usages to "begs the question" from published works could be provided to fill out the picture. If I find any I'll post them.
The question of the correctness of the use is really overshadowed by the obvious need in today's world for the modern meaning. There would be literally tens of thousands of examples if one were so inclined to comb through media transcripts. That part does not seem arguable at all. It means today what people think it means. It would, however, make everybody a little better informed if we understood the where the modern usage came from and how our ancestors spoke and thought. Blueistrue ( talk) 11:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I was under the impression that "begging the question", as commonly used, refers to someone making a statement which will prompt or require the response the speaker desires. For example, an employee being asked by a supervisor, "Doesn't our company have a great leadership team?" If the employee wants to remain employed, they are forced to say yes, if not to make a more flattering comment in praise of corporate leadership. I grew up in the New York City metropolitan area, perhaps this was just a local idiom. I am curious if anyone else hs a similar interpretation. 2001:558:6045:B5:4025:7A2F:4E54:EC5C ( talk) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the first section of the current version of the article, it is written that:
'For example, the statement that "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets because wool sweaters have higher wool content" begs the question because this statement assumes that higher wool content implies being a superior material. [1]'
Let P denote the statement "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets because wool sweaters have higher wool content".
Let A denote the statement "for every wool sweater and every nylon jacket, if the wool sweater has higher wool content than the nylon jacket, then the wool sweater is superior to the nylon jacket".
(Note that this statement is weaker than the analogous statement with "wool sweater" replaced by "sweater".)
Regarding the explanation for the example:
Let B denote the statement "this statement assumes that higher wool content implies being a superior material".
I fail to see why B is true – since in general the quality of the sweaters is not solely determined by how good the material is, we can only infer from P that A, rather than "higher wool content implies being a superior material", and so it cannot be inferred that the latter is assumed. B can only be true in some specific contexts, but since no specification of the context has been made for this statement, it would be weird to assume the context to be one of the particular contexts under which the statement is true, instead of a general context. Hence regardless of whether the statement is begging the question, the explanation in the article of why it is begging the question is problematic.
Regarding whether the statement begs the question:
I fail to see how it can be inferred that P begs the question, because begging the question is the problem of an attempted justification of a statement by another unjustified statement that implies the statement, and:
LRC.WK ( talk) 07:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
"In modern usage it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it"
Can "supporting it" be replaced by another verb or extended and made more specific via "supporting it by. . ."?
In the following examples, the premises indeed seem to "support" or agree with the conclusions. So for the layperson, can the definition be sharpened? Can counterexamples/fixes be added? 2600:1700:5B2C:A090:CD71:6CF5:98EB:EF87 ( talk) 17:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
The examples currently posted in first paragraph are incorrect.
In detail:
People have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Therefore, the earth is round.
This is appeal to popularity, not begging the question.
Coca Cola is the most popular soft drink in the world. Therefore, no other soft drink is as popular as Coca Cola.
This is just deduction. If the first sentence is untrue then it's a false premise, but the logic is sound.
God possesses all the virtues. Benevolence is a virtue. Therefore, God is benevolent.
Again, this is just deduction. If the first sentence is untrue then it's a false premise, but the logic is sound.
The following would be better examples of begging the question:
Glancing into the lengthy criminal record of the accused will reveal a history of conflict with the law.
A lengthy criminal record is indeed bound to contain some sort of mention of the accused being in conflict with the law. However, it is not formerly stated as a premise that such a record exists, and the conclusion is false if it doesn't.
Being able to factorize the positive natural number N into two unique sets of prime numbers proves that the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is false.
This sentence is correct if the existence of a number N is granted. However, it is not stated as a premise but implied within the sentence. Should such a number not exist (and it doesn't), the conclusion is false. 165.225.206.228 ( talk) 18:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
People so often misuse this phrase, I think it would be helpful to have a: "Not to be confused with 'raising/prompting the question' at the start. However, the existing notice is there because of a template, and there is no article for "raising the question" but there is this article's section on "vernacular." Consequently, I have two questions.
1. Can "Vernacular" be changed to something more meaningful, e.g., "Vernacular for 'raising the question'".
2. Can we have something at the head of the article noting a "not to be confused with" the "raising the question", even if it's not using that template. - Reagle ( talk) 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Examples are related to circular reasoning which is a related fallacy. 83.148.206.134 ( talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Begging the question article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Currently, the article claims "The phrase "begs the question" is also commonly used in an entirely unrelated way to mean "prompts a question" or "raises a question", although such usage is sometimes disputed.[4]" This sounds like the cited reference from The Guardian provides evidence that "begs the question" is NOT used as "raise the question". However, the reference provides evidence, that "begs the question" is only rarely used as a fallacy and MOSTLY used as "raise the question". Thus, the change 20:26, 29 November 2023 is correct. Why was it reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:4485:7DA0:C42F:502B:E1F8:85A8 ( talk)
I agree with 92.22.149.83's 12/9/20 removal of the bad example about "Hero Man". The problem is that it is germane to the paragraph (and Herrick quote) following it, which made no sense after this less than ideal example was removed and not replaced with a better one. And I find that following paragraph quite helpful, and completely confusing the way it was left incorrectly referencing what was meant to be a valid counterexample to begging the question (and incidentally unnecessary in my opinion.)
I just found and added what I think is a reasonable example to support the paragraph that follows it that is an example listed in Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap. Came upon the exmaple via a nice ThoughtCo article on the subject. Jeff Axelrod ( talk) 05:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Rather than perpetuating the mistake, shouldn't this article be titled "assuming the initial point" with a note that it is often mistranslated as "begging the question"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.146.26 ( talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This edit by another editor was reverted with the explanation "POV". Quite by coincidence, I made almost the same edit. The original edit was correct and should have stood. The "POV" comment is bizarre. Anyone with any powers of observation can be in no doubt that in everyday English "beg the question" is almost always used with the "incorrect" meaning. Most people have no knowledge of the "correct" meaning. 86.129.206.245 ( talk) 01:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
About the only thing I get out of this article is that no-one can explain what "begging the question" actually means. The examples are painfully unclear, the writing muddy, and the writers/editors of this article seem absolutely determined to expound on their arcane knowledge without ever getting to the point.
This article probably needs to be blown up and restarted from scratch. At the very least, someone needs to come up with a simple, clear set of examples for what this phrase meant in its classic sense. I mean, it sure beats me. I read the article, and I still don't know. No wonder the modern meaning is completely trouncing the older one -- even its defenders can't coherently explain it! 70.27.3.143 ( talk) 03:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The example relating to paranormal activity is clearly erroneous in my opinion as the writer of the passage assumed that a person needs to assume that paranormal activity is real in order to conclude that he has experienced a paranormal activity (and therefore infer that paranormal activity is real), which is not the case. The writer stated "something must be real for it to be experienced" as a part of his explanation, but the statement is of nothing more than the reason that a person who thinks he has experienced paranormal activity can logically infer that paranormal activity is real. I have decided to delete this example from the page. 134.87.133.113 ( talk) 04:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The article claims that:
"To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments."
is a fallacy because the second clause is just a restatement of the first clause. I don't agree. The first clause talks about the the advantage to the State, while the second clause talks about advantage to the community. A state is not the same thing as a community. There is, to be sure, a hidden premise: that things which are advantageous to communities are also advantageous to states, and one could quibble about that. But if the listener accepts that premise as plausible, then there is no fallacy in the statement. 185.121.6.44 ( talk) 13:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
How about "pretends to demonstrate what it already assumes"? 96.248.101.32 ( talk) 03:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)DeMikeal Brown
This is confusing to read:
All birds that are black are ravens; therefore, all birds that are not ravens are not black.
We should also include an example which has a *true* premise:
Asia is the largest continent; therefore, Asia has the largest area of any continent.
To ensure we don't mislead the reader into thinking "begging the question" necessarily means false premise.
Mateen Ulhaq ( talk) 12:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The way the example is now stated doesn't really fit. The line is now:
Asia is not the smallest continent because it has the largest area of any continent.
But this does not align with the conclusion:
[...] assuming the initial premise to be correct also means assuming the conclusion is correct.
One can assume Asia is not the smallest without therefore assuming the it has the largest area.
ZAD-Man ( talk) 22:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"Begs the question" is always used incorrectly because nobody knows what it really means. 205.142.232.18 ( talk) 21:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The description of the "classical" meaning is so confusig that now I wonder whether even Aristotle knew what he meant for it.
The "modern" meaning is very clear, but mostly thanks to the example given. Why not give a couple of examples for the "classical" one too, before trying to explain the concept in abstract and full generality? That is a basic teaching technique...
To be most effective, the "question" of the example should be something that the reader has no way to know whether it is true or false; and the argument should have three or four steps.
--
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
10:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"Prescriptivist grammarians and people versed in philosophy, logic, and law object to such usage as incorrect or, at best, unclear. This is because, it is claimed, the classical sense of Aristotelian logic is the correct one."
Does this sentence at the end of the article beg the question, or am I just confused? LouMichel ( talk) 23:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The ‘new’ usage does not arise from any fresh approach to rhetoric, but sheer ignorance, the misapplication of a precise term due to faulty understanding, or lazy learning. Like using ‘problematical’ to mean ‘difficult’ or ‘troublesome’.
‘I’m like really hungry and thirsty and stuff but I like left my wallet at home, so, yeah, that like begs the question of how I’m like gonna pay to eat and stuff. So, yeaahhhhhhhh…’ is a current misusage couched in a knucklehead idiom. -- 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:A533:3726:4EB6:E1FC ( talk) 09:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Please see my comment in the "Incorrect" post above.
Regarding the question of whether it is correct to say begs the question when you mean something like calls for the question to be asked and dealt with: It seems best answered by examples of modern (so-called "incorrect") usage, which I hear just about every day on news programs, juxtaposed to former usages in rhetoric and argumentation which were in fact correct by the understanding of those users.
As far as whether the transitive form of the verb does NOT encompass begging [for] a thing, I agree that it is true in the majority of cases but think that the usage can be more elastic: "I am thirsty. I beg water of you." You could argue that it is more proper to phrase it differently ("I beg a man for water.") but the first example seems idiomatic enough, though a little old fashioned. In the first, "water" is the direct object while in the second "a man" is the direct object. Perhaps more examples of parallel usages to "begs the question" from published works could be provided to fill out the picture. If I find any I'll post them.
The question of the correctness of the use is really overshadowed by the obvious need in today's world for the modern meaning. There would be literally tens of thousands of examples if one were so inclined to comb through media transcripts. That part does not seem arguable at all. It means today what people think it means. It would, however, make everybody a little better informed if we understood the where the modern usage came from and how our ancestors spoke and thought. Blueistrue ( talk) 11:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I was under the impression that "begging the question", as commonly used, refers to someone making a statement which will prompt or require the response the speaker desires. For example, an employee being asked by a supervisor, "Doesn't our company have a great leadership team?" If the employee wants to remain employed, they are forced to say yes, if not to make a more flattering comment in praise of corporate leadership. I grew up in the New York City metropolitan area, perhaps this was just a local idiom. I am curious if anyone else hs a similar interpretation. 2001:558:6045:B5:4025:7A2F:4E54:EC5C ( talk) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the first section of the current version of the article, it is written that:
'For example, the statement that "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets because wool sweaters have higher wool content" begs the question because this statement assumes that higher wool content implies being a superior material. [1]'
Let P denote the statement "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets because wool sweaters have higher wool content".
Let A denote the statement "for every wool sweater and every nylon jacket, if the wool sweater has higher wool content than the nylon jacket, then the wool sweater is superior to the nylon jacket".
(Note that this statement is weaker than the analogous statement with "wool sweater" replaced by "sweater".)
Regarding the explanation for the example:
Let B denote the statement "this statement assumes that higher wool content implies being a superior material".
I fail to see why B is true – since in general the quality of the sweaters is not solely determined by how good the material is, we can only infer from P that A, rather than "higher wool content implies being a superior material", and so it cannot be inferred that the latter is assumed. B can only be true in some specific contexts, but since no specification of the context has been made for this statement, it would be weird to assume the context to be one of the particular contexts under which the statement is true, instead of a general context. Hence regardless of whether the statement is begging the question, the explanation in the article of why it is begging the question is problematic.
Regarding whether the statement begs the question:
I fail to see how it can be inferred that P begs the question, because begging the question is the problem of an attempted justification of a statement by another unjustified statement that implies the statement, and:
LRC.WK ( talk) 07:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
"In modern usage it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it"
Can "supporting it" be replaced by another verb or extended and made more specific via "supporting it by. . ."?
In the following examples, the premises indeed seem to "support" or agree with the conclusions. So for the layperson, can the definition be sharpened? Can counterexamples/fixes be added? 2600:1700:5B2C:A090:CD71:6CF5:98EB:EF87 ( talk) 17:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
The examples currently posted in first paragraph are incorrect.
In detail:
People have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Therefore, the earth is round.
This is appeal to popularity, not begging the question.
Coca Cola is the most popular soft drink in the world. Therefore, no other soft drink is as popular as Coca Cola.
This is just deduction. If the first sentence is untrue then it's a false premise, but the logic is sound.
God possesses all the virtues. Benevolence is a virtue. Therefore, God is benevolent.
Again, this is just deduction. If the first sentence is untrue then it's a false premise, but the logic is sound.
The following would be better examples of begging the question:
Glancing into the lengthy criminal record of the accused will reveal a history of conflict with the law.
A lengthy criminal record is indeed bound to contain some sort of mention of the accused being in conflict with the law. However, it is not formerly stated as a premise that such a record exists, and the conclusion is false if it doesn't.
Being able to factorize the positive natural number N into two unique sets of prime numbers proves that the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is false.
This sentence is correct if the existence of a number N is granted. However, it is not stated as a premise but implied within the sentence. Should such a number not exist (and it doesn't), the conclusion is false. 165.225.206.228 ( talk) 18:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
People so often misuse this phrase, I think it would be helpful to have a: "Not to be confused with 'raising/prompting the question' at the start. However, the existing notice is there because of a template, and there is no article for "raising the question" but there is this article's section on "vernacular." Consequently, I have two questions.
1. Can "Vernacular" be changed to something more meaningful, e.g., "Vernacular for 'raising the question'".
2. Can we have something at the head of the article noting a "not to be confused with" the "raising the question", even if it's not using that template. - Reagle ( talk) 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Examples are related to circular reasoning which is a related fallacy. 83.148.206.134 ( talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)