• mcesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Can someone please give me a ‘real’ or formal example of #4/begging the question? I think it’s commonly used to mean ‘raises the question’, which isn’t the same thing.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      God is all good because he wants for nothing. Paraphrasing Descartes.

      Assumes that there is a God, assumes that it is all powerful, assumes that all evil comes from the desire for more stuff. You are asked to accept a whole mess of stuff is true that isn’t supported.

      • myslsl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Having to accept certain premises isn’t exactly the issue with begging the question.

        Begging the question is when a person accidentally or intentionally assumes their conclusion, i.e. the thing they’re trying to prove/argue for.

        For example, if your friend is trying to prove the pythagorean theorem from math to you, and after a long list of geometric and algebraic work they sneak in a usage of the pythagorean theorem to reach the conclusion without either of you noticing, then your friend has begged the question. Their usage of the pythagorean theorem assumes the thing they wanted to prove in the first place was true.

        • myslsl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To go further, you can have a conditional claim like “A implies B”, that doesn’t beg the question, but in your reasoning for showing why A really does imply B, you can still beg the question (which is what happens in my pythagorean example).

          Certain arguments can have premises that do essentially beg the question too though. If I make a conditional claim like “A and B are true therefore B is true”, then my conditional claim assumes B is true in the first place. You can’t really tell anything about whether or not B is actually true from my claim because my claim assumes B is true from the start.

          Just having to assume certain premises isn’t inherently logically fallacious. All true conditional claims depend on their premises to guarantee the truth of their conclusion. The issues that can arise with conditional claims are usually that their premises are false or that their premises don’t actually imply their conclusion.

    • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “We should raise the voting age because people under 18 shouldn’t vote”

      The conclusion is rephrased to support itself. In this case it begs the question why shouldn’t people under 18 vote?

      I think “raising the question” can also be used in this instance, while “begs the question” exclusively references the fallacy.