Begging the question

Bust of Aristotle, whose Prior Analytics contained an early discussion of this fallacy

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BCE, in his book Prior Analytics, where he classified it as a material fallacy. Begging the question is related to the circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin, "circle in proving") or circular reasoning, though these are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.^[1]

1 History
2 Definition
3 Related fallacies
4 Modern usage
5 See also
6 Notes
7 References

[edit] History

The term was translated into English from the Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii (petitio: petition, request; principii, genitive of principium: beginning, basis, premise of an argument), literally means "a request for the beginning or premise." That is, the premise depends on the truth of the very matter in question.

The Latin phrase comes from the Greek en archei aiteisthai in Aristotle's Prior Analytics II xvi:

Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) [of] failing to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain and is prior. Now begging the question is none of these. [...] If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue.... [B]egging the question is proving what is not self-evident by means of itself...either because predicates which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate belongs to subjects which are identical.

Thomas Fowler's Deductive Logic (1887) argues that the Latin origin is more properly Petitio Quæsiti, which is literally "begging the question".

[edit] Definition

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (November 2009)

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."^[2] More specifically, petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. The fallacy may be committed in various ways.

When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in a single step, it is sometimes called a hysteron proteron,^[3] as in the statement "Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality".^[4] Such fallacies may not be immediately obvious in English because the English language has many synonyms; one way to beg the question is to make a statement first in concrete terms, then in abstract ones, or vice-versa.^[4] Another is to "bring forth a proposition expressed in words of Saxon origin, and give as a reason for it the very same proposition stated in words of Norman origin",^[5] as in this example: "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."^[6]

When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, it is sometimes referred to as circulus in probando or reasoning in a circle^[3] but incorrectly so, if we look at the definition Aristotle gave in Prior Analytics.^[1]

"Begging the question" can also refer to making an argument in which the premise "is different from the conclusion ... but is controversial or questionable for the same reasons that typically might lead someone to question the conclusion."^[7]

.... seldom is anyone going to simply place the conclusion word-for-word into the premises .... Rather, an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the conclusion is masquerading as a premise. The conclusion is rephrased to look different and is then placed in the premises.

'Paul Herrick, ^[8]

Person 1: He is annoyed right now. Person 2: How do you know? Person 1: Well, because he is really angry.

[edit] Related fallacies

In informal situations, the term begging the question is often used in place of circular argument. In the formal context however, begging the question holds a different meaning.^[1] In its shortest form, circular reasoning is the basing of two conclusions by means of which there is demonstrated a reversed premise of the first argument. Begging the question does not require any such reversal.

Begging the question is similar to the fallacy of many questions: a fallacy of technique that results from presenting evidence in support of a conclusion that is less likely to be accepted, rather than merely asserting the conclusion. A specific form of this is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion which is no more known to be true than the more specific assertion:

All intentional acts of killing human beings are morally wrong.
The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being.
Therefore the death penalty is wrong.

If the first premise is accepted as an axiom within some moral system or code, this reasoning is a cogent argument against the death penalty. If not, it is in fact a weaker argument than a mere assertion that the death penalty is wrong, since the first premise is stronger than the conclusion.

[edit] Modern usage

Some English speakers use "beg the question" as though it means "raise the question": for example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars, which begs the question: how are we going to balance the budget?" Such usage disregards the established meaning of the phrase as discussed above, and hence usage commentators deem it incorrect.^[9]

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

^ ^a ^b ^c The petitio principii or Begging the question is studied in Prior Analytics II, 64b, 34 ' 65a, 9 and it's considered fallacy. The circular argument, circulus in probando or circular reasoning is explained in Prior Analytics II, 57b, 18 ' 59b, 1 and it's not considered fallacy, rather they are logic argument as Aristotle says.
^ Welton (1905), 279.
^ ^a ^b Davies (1915), 572.
^ ^a ^b Welton (1905), 281.
^ Gibson (1908), 291.
^ Richard Whately, Elements of Logic (1826) quoted in Gibson (1908), 291.
^ Kahane and Cavender (2005), 60.
^ Herrick (2000), 248.
^ Follett (1966), 228; Kilpatrick (1997); Martin (2002), 71; Safire (1998).

[edit] References

Cohen, Morris Raphael, Ernest Nagel, and John Corcoran. An Introduction to Logic. Hackett Publishing, 1993. ISBN 0-87220-144-9.
Davies, Arthur Ernest. A Text-book of Logic. R.G. Adams and Company, 1915.
Follett, Wilson. Modern American Usage: A Guide. Macmillan, 1966. ISBN 0-8090-0139-X.
Gibson, William Ralph Boyce, and Augusta Klein. The Problem of Logic. A. and C. Black, 1908.
Herrick, Paul. The Many Worlds of Logic. Oxford University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-19-515503-3
Kahane, Howard, and Nancy Cavender. Logic and contemporary rhetoric : the use of reason in everyday life. Cengage Learning, 2005. ISBN 0-534-62604-1.
Kilpatrick, James. "Begging Question Assumes Proof of an Unproved Proposition." Rocky Mountain News (CO) 6 April 1997. Accessed through Access World News on 3 June 2009.
Martin, Robert M. There Are Two Errors in the the Title of This Book: A sourcebook of philosophical puzzles, paradoxes and problems. Broadview Press, 2002. ISBN 1-55111-493-3.
Mercier, Charles Arthur. A New Logic. Open Court Publishing Company, 1912.
Mill, John Stuart. A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: being a connected view of the principles of evidence, and the methods of scientific investigation. J.W. Parker, 1851.
Safire, William. "On Language: Take my question please!." The New York Times 26 July 1998. Accessed 3 June 2009.
Schiller, Ferdinand Canning Scott. Formal logic, a scientific and social problem. London: Macmillan, 1912.
Welton, James. A Manual of Logic. W.B. Clive, 1905.

v ' d ' e Fallacies of relevance

General	Absurdity – Accident – Ad nauseam – Argument from ignorance – Argument from silence – Argument to moderation – Argumentum ad populum – Base rate – Compound question – Evidence of absence – Invincible ignorance – Loaded question – Moralistic – Naturalistic – Non sequitur – Proof by assertion – Irrelevant conclusion – Special pleading – Straw man – Two wrongs make a right

Appeals to emotion	Fear – Flattery – Nature – Novelty – Pity – Ridicule – Children's interests – Island mentality – Not Invented Here – Repugnance – Spite

Genetic fallacies	Ad feminam – Ad hominem (Ad hominem tu quoque) – Appeal to accomplishment – Appeal to authority – Appeal to etymology – Appeal to motive – Appeal to novelty – Appeal to poverty – Appeals to psychology – Appeal to the stone – Appeal to tradition – Appeal to wealth – Association – Bulverism – Chronological snobbery – Ipse dixit (Ipse-dixitism) – Poisoning the well – Pro hominem – Reductio ad Hitlerum –

Appeals to consequences	Appeal to force – Wishful thinking

v ' d ' e Formal fallacies

Masked man fallacy – Appeal to probability – Bare assertion fallacy – Circular reasoning

Fallacy of propositional logic	Affirming a disjunct – Affirming the consequent – Denying the antecedent – Argument from fallacy – False dilemma

Fallacy of quantificational logic	Existential fallacy – Illicit Conversion – Proof by example – Quantifier shift

Syllogistic fallacy	Accident – Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise – Converse accident – Dicto simpliciter – Exclusive premises – Existential – Necessity – Four-term Fallacy – Illicit major – Illicit minor – Undistributed middle

List of fallacies (formal and informal) – Other types of formal fallacy

v ' d ' e Informal fallacies

Absence paradox – Begging the question – Blind men and an elephant – Cherry picking – Complex question – False analogy – Fallacy of distribution (Composition – Division) – Furtive fallacy – Hasty generalization – I'm entitled to my opinion – Many questions (Loaded question) – McNamara fallacy – Name calling – Polylogism – Red herring fallacy – Special pleading – Rationalization (making excuses) – Slothful induction

Correlative-based fallacies	False dilemma (Perfect solution) – Denying the correlative – Suppressed correlative

Deductive fallacies	Accident – Converse accident

Inductive fallacies	Sampling bias – Conjunction fallacy – False analogy – Hasty generalization – Misleading vividness – Overwhelming exception

Vagueness and ambiguity	Amphibology – Continuum fallacy – False precision – Slippery slope

Equivocation	Equivocation – False attribution – Fallacy of quoting out of context – No true Scotsman – Reification

Questionable cause	Animistic – Appeal to consequences – Argumentum ad baculum – Circular cause and consequence – Correlation does not imply causation (Cum hoc) – Gambler's fallacy and its inverse – Post hoc – Prescience – Regression – Single cause – Slippery slope – Texas sharpshooter – The Great Magnet – Unknown Root – Wrong direction

List of fallacies – Other types of fallacy

Logic

Academic areas	Argumentation theory – Axiology – Critical thinking – Computability theory – Formal semantics – History of logic – Informal logic – Logic in computer science – Mathematical logic – Mathematics – Metalogic – Metamathematics – Model theory – Philosophical logic – Philosophy – Philosophy of logic – Philosophy of mathematics – Proof theory – Set theory

Foundational concepts	Abduction – Analytic truth – Antinomy – A priori – Deduction – Definition – Description – Entailment – Induction – Inference – Logical consequence – Logical form – Logical implication – Logical truth – Name – Necessity – Meaning – Paradox – Possible world – Presupposition – Probability – Reason – Reasoning – Reference – Semantics – Statement – Substitution – Syntax – Truth – Truth value – Validity

Philosophical logic

Critical thinking and Informal logic	Analysis – Ambiguity – Belief – Credibility – Evidence – Explanation – Explanatory power – Fact – Fallacy – Inquiry – Opinion – Parsimony – Premise – Propaganda – Prudence – Reasoning – Relevance – Rhetoric – Rigor – Vagueness

Theories of deduction	Constructivism – Dialetheism – Fictionalism – Finitism – Formalism – Intuitionism – Logical atomism – Logicism – Nominalism – Platonic realism – Pragmatism – Realism

Metalogic and Metamathematics

Cantor's theorem – Church's theorem – Church's thesis – Consistency – Effective method – Foundations of mathematics – Gödel's completeness theorem – Gödel's incompleteness theorems – Soundness – Completeness – Decidability – Interpretation – Löwenheim'Skolem theorem – Metatheorem – Satisfiability – Independence – Type-token distinction – Use'mention distinction –

Mathematical logic

General	Formal language – Formation rule – Formal system – Deductive system – Formal proof – Formal semantics – Well-formed formula – Set – Element – Class – Classical logic – Axiom – Natural deduction – Rule of inference – Relation – Theorem – Logical consequence – Axiomatic system – Type theory – Symbol – Syntax – Theory

Traditional logic	Proposition – Inference – Argument – Validity – Cogency – Syllogism – Square of opposition – Venn diagram

Propositional logic and Boolean logic	Boolean functions – Propositional calculus – Propositional formula – Logical connectives – Quantifiers – Truth tables

Predicate	First-order – Quantifiers – Predicate – Second-order – Monadic predicate calculus

Set theory	Set – Empty set – Enumeration – Extensionality – Finite set – Function – Subset – Power set – Countable set – Recursive set – Domain – Range – Ordered pair – Uncountable set

Model theory	Model – Interpretation – Non-standard model – Truth value – Validity

Proof theory	Formal proof – Deductive system – Formal system – Formal theorem – Logical consequence – Rule of inference – Syntax

Computability theory	Recursion – Recursive set – Recursively enumerable set – Decision problem – Church'Turing thesis – Computable function – Primitive recursive function –

Non-classical logic

Modal logic	Alethic – Axiologic – Deontic – Doxastic – Epistemic – Temporal

Intuitionism	Intuitionistic logic – Constructive analysis – Heyting arithmetic – Intuitionistic type theory – Constructive set theory –

Fuzzy logic	Degree of truth – Fuzzy rule – Fuzzy set – Fuzzy finite element – Fuzzy set operations –

Substructural logic	Structural rule – Relevance logic – Linear logic

Paraconsistent logic	Dialetheism

Logicians

Anderson – Aristotle – Averroes – Avicenna – Barwise – Bernays – Boole – Boolos – Cantor – Carnap – Church – Chrysippus – Curry – De Morgan – Frege – Geach – Gentzen – Gödel – Hilbert – Kleene – Kripke – Leibniz – Löwenheim – Peano – Peirce – Putnam – Quine – Russell – Scotus – Skolem – Smullyan – Tarski – Turing – Whitehead – William of Ockham – Wittgenstein – Zermelo

Lists

Topics	Outline of logic – Index of logic articles – Mathematical logic – Boolean algebra – Set theory

Other	Logicians – Rules of inference – Paradoxes – Fallacies – Logic symbols

Portal – Category – Outline – WikiProject – Talk – changes

Related Articles & Resources

Sources Subject Index - Experts, Sources, Spokespersons

Sources Select Resources Articles

This article is based on one or more articles in Wikipedia, with modifications and additional content by SOURCES editors. This article is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The remainder of the content of this website, except where otherwise indicated, is copyright SOURCES and may not be reproduced without written permission. (For information use the Contact form.)

SOURCES.COM is an online portal and directory for journalists, news media, researchers and anyone seeking experts, spokespersons, and reliable information resources. Use SOURCES.COM to find experts, media contacts, news releases, background information, scientists, officials, speakers, newsmakers, spokespeople, talk show guests, story ideas, research studies, databases, universities, associations and NGOs, businesses, government spokespeople. Indexing and search applications by Ulli Diemer and Chris DeFreitas.

For information about being included in SOURCES as a expert or spokesperson see the FAQ . For partnerships, content and applications, and domain name opportunities contact us.

Sources home page