 |
| Italy: People&countries, Facebook |
Edited on August 12, 2022 for an entry on academia.edu. Mainly a review of an entry in the Pirie text.
Pirie
Logically fallacious referencing Menssen & Sullivan (2007)
The Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)
Pirie
Immediately, one can connect the Latin term interrogationum with English terms interrogate, interrogation and related. An open dialogue is not desired by the interrogator, but instead there is a definite agenda in which certain responses are sought. This can be accomplished through an aggressive approach and by asking multiple questions, without allowing time for reasonable dialogue.
Pirie explains that this is the use of 'many questions' and 'the fallacy of the complex question.' (60).
Several questions are combined into one and these require yes or no answers and the person being asked has no opportunity to answer each question individually. (60).
This can be seen in interrogation techniques, but also in the context of debating when one debater attempts to bully the other debater through a barrage of questions while not allowing time for each point to be answered. Incidentally, in this situation, I would expose the intellectual bully and state that one will not be permitted to attempt to win an argument through this fallacious means. In other words, allow reasonable dialogue or the debate in ended.
Pirie explains that with this fallacy, in regard to the questions, 'All of them contain an assumption that the concealed question has already been answered affirmatively.' (61).
Not all the facts have necessarily been established with some of the questions. (61). 'Why did the chicken cross the road? (61). Why did the chicken come from KFC (my add)? The author explains that these type of fallacious questions preclude answers such as 'There was none' (61), or 'it didn't'. (61).
'Why did Chucky, kill that other doll?', precludes 'He did not.'
This type of fallacious argumentation can be used by someone that is angry and/or emotional and wants to promote his/her agenda in an argument and does not desire to seriously ponder and consider the views of other.
Look for this fallacy within certain political, religious and personal issue debates when persons hold to positions emotionally more so than intellectually, and therefore do not want to seriously dialogue with the opponent. There is no emotional willingness to change view.
Pirie explains that this is the use of 'many questions' and 'the fallacy of the complex question.' (60).
Several questions are combined into one and these require yes or no answers and the person being asked has no opportunity to answer each question individually. (60).
This can be seen in interrogation techniques, but also in the context of debating when one debater attempts to bully the other debater through a barrage of questions while not allowing time for each point to be answered. Incidentally, in this situation, I would expose the intellectual bully and state that one will not be permitted to attempt to win an argument through this fallacious means. In other words, allow reasonable dialogue or the debate in ended.
Pirie explains that with this fallacy, in regard to the questions, 'All of them contain an assumption that the concealed question has already been answered affirmatively.' (61).
Not all the facts have necessarily been established with some of the questions. (61). 'Why did the chicken cross the road? (61). Why did the chicken come from KFC (my add)? The author explains that these type of fallacious questions preclude answers such as 'There was none' (61), or 'it didn't'. (61).
'Why did Chucky, kill that other doll?', precludes 'He did not.'
This type of fallacious argumentation can be used by someone that is angry and/or emotional and wants to promote his/her agenda in an argument and does not desire to seriously ponder and consider the views of other.
Look for this fallacy within certain political, religious and personal issue debates when persons hold to positions emotionally more so than intellectually, and therefore do not want to seriously dialogue with the opponent. There is no emotional willingness to change view.
Logically fallacious
Cited
'Complex Question Fallacy plurium interrogationum (also known as: many questions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, trick question, false question)
Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact.
Logical Form: Question X is asked that requires implied claim Y to be accepted before question X can be answered.' (End citation)
My example: How many times a day do you stop believing in Reformed theology?
(There will not be a times a day that my worldview changes)
Cited
'Exception: It is not a fallacy if the implied information in the question is known to be an accepted fact. How long can one survive without water? Here, it is presumed that we need water to survive, which very few would deny that fact.' (End citation)
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
MENSSEN S & SULLIVAN T.D (2007) The Agnostic Inquirer: Revelation from a Philosophical Standpoint, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Complex-Question-Fallacy
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
