I prepared this article to publish on
academia.edu
Begging the Question/(FT)(FF)(TT)(TF)
Pirie
British philosopher in How to Win Every Argument, Pirie explains in his entry:
Begging The Question & Circulus In Probando:
'It consists of using as evidence a fact which is authenticated by the very conclusion it supports.' (56).
Pirie further states:
'It fails to relate the unknown or unaccepted to the known or accepted. All it gives us is two unknowns so busy chasing each other's tails that neither has time to attach itself to reality.' (57).
Pirie notes that convincing proofs for religion and ideology would make it much more difficult for intelligent people to disagree with them. (57). He also warns against the use of supposed scientific knowledge within circular reasoning. A new theory in line with old theories is accepted, he suggests, but these are not often objectively proven. (57). He warns that scientific knowledge from argumentation may be consistent and circular, simultaneously. (57).
Blackburn
Simon Blackburn in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy writes that begging the question assumes what is at issue in an argument. Blackburn (1996: 39). Although persons are commonly accused of begging the question there is no logical definition of those kinds of arguments that beg the question. Blackburn (1996: 39). In the widest sense any valid argument may beg the question since its premises already contain its conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39). Blackburn explains that these types of arguments can still be reasonably held. Blackburn (1996: 39).
I do however, attempt to avoid arguing my conclusion in any one of my premises although a premise could allude to a conclusion, although I attempt to avoid this as well. Blackburn writes that a best definition of begging the question would be if a clear premise would not be accepted by any reasonable person who is initially prone to deny the conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39).
Sanford
David H. Sanford within The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines begging the question under the heading of circular reasoning. It is described as reasoning that traced backwards forms it own conclusion and returns to that starting point. Sanford (1996: 124). Sanford explains that presuming a truth of a conclusion within a premise thwarts the attempt to increase the degree of reasonable confidence that a conclusion is true. Sanford (1996: 124). It reason that it is better when putting together different types of arguments to establish separate but related premises that would ultimately support a conclusion rather than weakening an argument by assuming the conclusion within a premise and therefore not providing actual evidence for the conclusion.
Conway
David A. Conway and Ronald Munson in The Elements of Reasoning explain begging the question (Petitio Principii) as when the issue at hand is begged and not really addressed. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is when some reason offered for some conclusion is not really different from the conclusion itself. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is stating a conclusion that also serves as a premise. Conway and Munson (1997: 132).
Comments
In my view, it is not begging the question to define a viewpoint without argumentation or to state that if a certain view is assumed correct then a related point could be assumed correct in a hypothetical context. If a person defines a theory in response to a contrary view it is not begging the question because the person is merely pointing out the differences between two different perspectives and not arguing for or against those perspectives. Also if a person states that if an assumption is correct then another assumption may be true is also not begging the question since the person would be offering hypothetical analysis and not an argumentation on the truth of the claims. Begging the question would be if a person specifically argued the conclusion of an argument within a premise.
It seems to me that attempting to separate premise from conclusion as much as possible, within reason, is valid.
From The Elements of Reasoning:
Validity in deductive arguments is a technical term in logic. Elements (1997: 33).
The concept of true premises and false conclusion would be 'inconceivable in a valid argument'. Elements (1997: 33).
Validity is a set of premises supporting a conclusion. Technically in logic the premises do not have to be true, simply valid. Elements (1997: 33).
Therefore a valid deductive argument can have:
False premises and a true conclusion (FT)
False premises and a false conclusion (FF)
True premises and a true conclusion (TT)
However...
True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid.
Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. These also have true conclusions.
Pirie explains that a conclusion must be consistent with the arguments present in support of it. (66).
A conclusion must be reasonably and legitimately supported by propositions/premises.
To avoid Begging the question, rather than stating:
Premise
People have a 'God-shaped hole in the heart'.
Conclusion
Therefore the Bible is true.
Better to seek objectivity, even with spirituality as these are not mutually exclusive, contrary to some with hyper-theologies.
An obviously limited and non-exhaustive example follows:
Premise
The Hebrew Bible is documented religious history.
Premise
The New Testament is documented religious history.
Premise
The New Testament presents a bridge to and from the Hebrew Bible by prophetic and theological means.
Premise
The New Testament presents the culmination of God's plans for this creation through the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ.
Premise
Rationalism (I am not opposed to the use of empirical knowledge) and philosophy of religion can provide arguments for the existence of an infinite, eternal, non-material first cause.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Christian faith and philosophy is reasonable to hold to.
---
If one does not have an argument, to avoid this informal fallacy, it is better to make a statement (proposition) (assertion). For example, as required, I created problem of evil, propositions within my British MPhil/PhD questionnaires, which led to surveys.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Begging the question’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
SANFORD, DAVID H. (1996) ‘Circular Reasoning', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
PhD and MPhil link
Previous related website articles
No comments:
Post a Comment