Talk:Begging the question

Deleted "Hero Man" example broke following paragraphs

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)

Wrong Title

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)

"Incorrect" meaning

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)

I think my experience is a bit different than yours, but really what is needed her is some source which says what you assert. Paul August ☎ 02:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the misused form "beg the question" is grammatically incorrect, because in the intransitive form of "beg", it should be "beg for the question". The transitive form of "beg" has the target of begging as the object of the verb, e.g. "I beg you", "he begged the passer-by for help".24.69.25.223 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This article begs the question: if I'm using "beg the question" incorrectly, how could I possibly tell?

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)

I agree that the article needs a better explanation and example of something that "begs the question" in the older, formal sense of the term. I'm adding an example section to the top of the article. 209.165.166.193 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleting the erroneous or at best very confusing example in the first paragraph

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 freedom of speech example isn't a fallacy

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)

"the State" is just a specific case of a community here; one could replace the word "community" with "State" and it would be the same argument. But it's not circular because the conclusion differs from the premise. It is however invalid, because there is a hidden and erroneous premise that what is highly conducive to the interests of a community must always be, on the whole, advantageous to it ... not so, as there could be other competing interests of the community. -- Jibal (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the first part. The OP here is confusing "a state" with "the state." The former just refers to a mid-level form of organization and government, generally somewhere between a city/town/village and a nation/country/republic. The latter is a broad term to refer to the governing body of a city/town/state/county/nation/republic/etc. It's a reference to the interests of the body in charge, that makes legislation and has an obligation to defend "the state's interest" in any law which restricts activities of anyone it applies to.

The second part is trickier. Yes, there can be competing interests, but there can also be competing situations of advantage. Something can advantage one party or group within a community and disadvantage others - but that is covered in the wording and you kind of glossed over that. Even your use of "always be" and "on the whole" are direct contradictions of one another. "On the whole" specifically means in the bulk of situations, not in all situations - it's the same thing as saying, "generally," "in most cases," "for the most part," etc. It's specifically clarifying that, while it is true more often than not, it is not going to be true in every single example.CleverTitania (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Short definition

How about "pretends to demonstrate what it already assumes"?96.248.101.32 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)DeMikeal Brown

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the original thoughts of editors. If you can find some RS that uses that language, then it can be incorporated into the article. -- Jibal (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bad example

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)

All I know

"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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Begging the question.png

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 confusing

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)

Does this beg the question?

"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)

No, the sentence does not beg the question, the passage describes people engaged in an argument that could be considered begging the question, in the Aristotelian fashion. Hence the "it is claimed" in the middle.

That said, it's pretty common within etymology to treat the first definition in history as the "correct" one, especially if it was in use for many years (centuries) before the secondary or modern usage. And that's doubly true if early examples of contemporary usage all appear to be the result of people misunderstanding the existing definition. So, their argument isn't exactly saying it's the correct one because it's correct, so much as it's the correct one because it's usage far predates the contemporary usage.

For myself though, I would really like to see an etymological breakdown of the contemporary usage, and see if those early examples did involve people incorrectly using the existing phrase, or if it was said by people who had never heard the original phrase. Because that would indicate whether or not it's a misusage or a dual evolution of the phrase - which is certainly plausible. CleverTitania (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't beg the question, but the argument given by prescriptivists does: The "modern" sense is incorrect because the classic sense is correct. As for "it's pretty common within etymology" -- etymology is not meaning, and has nothing to say about what is "correct usage". P.S. Gotta love the absurd putting-words-in-my-mouth claim that I'm arguing that etymology is not what etymology is defined to be; I of course am doing no such thing. Yeah, etymology includes study of historical usage. Again, that tells us nothing about "correct usage". The very fact that there is such a thing as "the evolution of a word's meaning" should make that clear. Etymology is an area of scientific investigation, not a normative arbiter ... science never tells us what is "correct" behavior. -- Jibal (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That etymology is not the end-all-be-all of definition or usage is certainly true. But to say etymology is neither meaning nor has anything to say about correct usage is bordering on absurd. Etymology is the study of the historical origin, usage and evolution of a word's meaning. You're basically arguing that etymology is not what etymology is defined to be. CleverTitania (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

New Usage

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)