Dear journalists, politicians, anonymous online pundits, and anyone else who writes or speaks to the public with the expectation of being taken seriously;
“To beg the question” does not mean what most of you appear to think it means. It is not synonymous with “to ask, raise, or provoke the question”. It does not imply that the question begs to be asked. It means something completely different. It is an overly literal translation of the Latin “petitio principii”, which is more accurately rendered as “assuming the initial point”.
If you take the conclusion of your argument (that would be the point you’re trying to prove), reword it, and then use that statement as a premise in defense of your argument (in effect, if you try to use your conclusion to prove itself), you will have committed the logical blunder of “begging the question”.
An example: “Stephen Harper is a fascist because he exhibits all the characteristics of a fascist leadership model.” See what I did there? I didn’t defend my assertion that Stephen Harper is a fascist with any actual information. I made it sound good by throwing around some big words. But I didn’t define the characteristics of a fascist leadership model, and I didn’t describe any of the ways in which Stephen Harper exhibits those characteristics. In effect, I merely said that Stephen Harper is a fascist because he is a fascist. THAT’S begging the question. Clear? Good.
That is all. —Pedantic Troll is Pedantic
This article appears in Feb 16-22, 2012.
However, if you state that “Stephen Harper is a fascist” and accompany it with a finger-painting of Mr. Harper in a mock SA uniform, you may just win an Atlantic Journalism Award. Logic be damned.
hahaha! You JUST learned this in philosophy class on Friday didn’t you op?
Otherwise you would have found something far more pressing to put in this long-winded bitch.
I’ll recognize your next bitch OP. It will be a three word zinger right after you figure out that the most brilliant essays can be summed up in a tweet. Any idiot can explain himself if he has a billion words to do it. But clearly that part of the syllabus hasn’t been covered yet.
thank you godzilla. Your contribution to this thread was MOST enlightening as well..
Especially since now we know who wrote the bitch.
m.m., is this your shit. kinda sounds like it might have your hot little hand in it. but if it isn’t, then some pretentious asshole is trying hard to look smart.
RSVPs
: Life Sucks (Feb. 20, 2:29PM)
“m.m., is this your shit. kinda sounds like it might have your hot little hand in it.”
Well, actually no Sucks, it’s not my “shit” but I must say, at least for me, it was the most interesting of today’s crop of bitches.
A simpler, and more concise way of putting it is, in response to any particular issue or question, to simply “assume one’s conclusions.” Interestingly, or maybe not so interestingly, it has served me wonderfully in my RSVPs, that is, in taking my respondent to task for a fundamental and very common failure of reasoning on ths site. In terms of Aristotelian “formal” logic, to assume one’s conclusions is a variant of his Second Law of Logic, that of “The Excluded Middle.” The “excluded middle” in the present case requires that one demonstrate the connection between (a) Stephen Harper’s assertions and (c) that Stephen Harper is a fascist. The “excluded middle” (b) provides independent grounds for the assertion which renders it logically complete.
I tried to find a similar failing in your comment, Sucks, but found it to be logically impeccable, principally because no logical assertion was made. But even if you did make such an assertion I’m sure you would have avoided logical fallacy by violating Aristotle’s Law of the Excluded Middle.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
The person who wrote this is def a virgin.
I’m not so I didn’t write this. I prolly had more sex in my 23 years of life than any person on here who’s older than me.
Zilla, if you are referring to the verb derail, e.g. to obstruct by diverting it from its intended course (from the French derailler (de- (expressing removal) + rail) then please observe that it does not contain a hyphen.
de-lighted, I’m sure,
(de-lovely) Xenophilia
CALLING ZILLLLLA. Work your muthaf-ing magic!
this is y u have no friends
Pedantic posts are pedantic because they assume the initial point, which of course begs the question “What just happened to the last five minutes?”.
RSVPs
: Troondon formosa (Feb. 20, 10:27PM)
“Pedantic posts are pedantic because they assume the intial point…”
“Pedant, n. – one who makes an excessive or tedious show of learning or learned precision; one who possesses mere book learning without practical wisdom.” (The American College Dictionary)
The question we have before us this morning is whether Troon’s assertion satisfies the requirements of Logic 101, to wit, is there a relationship of logical entailment between pedantic posts, i.e., those written by pedants, and those posts which assume the initial point, i.e., “begging the question.” I maintain that there exists no relationship of logical entailment whatsoever.
It appears obvious that one might make an excessive or tedious show of learning or learned precision yet NOT beg the question, i.e., NOT “assume the initial point.” Pedantry on the one hand and question-begging on the other are two separate categories, one relating to the style of the post, the other to its content and, as we all know, style and content are radically distinct categories. So it falls to Troon to establish his claim, that of the relationship of entailment between style and content.
I would also like to take issue with the dictionary’s definition of the pedant himself. Is there a necessary or logical disjunction between “book learning” and “practical wisdom?” This is a very common error but I maintain that both, at least in principle, may peacefully co-exist in the same mind. As with Troon, it falls to the writers of the Dictionary to demonstrate otherwise.
Speaking of “begging the question,” did you notice that the dictionary definition illegitimately prefaces “book learning” with the word “mere.” But why must such learning be only “mere.” This is a classic example of “begging the question,” of assuming one’s conclusions. In other words, the Dictionary must demonstrate its claim, not simply assert it.
Finally, some may maintain that my posts, such as this one, are themselves pedantic, that they display an excessive or tedious show of learning or learned precision. I must confess to you now that this reflects my Monty Pythonish sense of humour, of my enjoyment of spoofing or parodying the question under review. This is what I’m doing now and, I must say, I’m enjoying it. But to be a good spoof there must be a serious dimension underlying it. In the present case it relates to the distinctions which must be made between disparate concetps.
It was the same with my spoof “What is Art?” (“Nut Jobs”). My spoof consisted of taking the question of the frozen cube of sperm as art “seriously.” But the question “What is Art?” actually IS a serious question since the criteria of what constitutes art are amorphous (did you like that word?) at best. In fact, I think I’ll go over to “Nut Jobs” now.
I hope you enjoyed reading this post as much as I did writing it.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!