Begging the question
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
"Begging the question", in modern popular usage, is often used synonymously for "raising the question". However the correct, original meaning is quite different: it described a type of logical fallacy in which the evidence given for a proposition contains the proposition itself. This is also known as a circular argument, circulus in probando, petitio principii, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic it was first identified by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in his book Prior Analytics.
| Contents |
Confusion in the term "begging the question"
Part of the reason for the misunderstanding over "begging the question" may be due to the term itself, which was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, Petitio Principii, could be translated more accurately as "petitioning the principle," meaning claiming the truth of the very matter in question, but the more pithy "begging the question" has become the well-known translation.
The two meanings ("circular argument" and "raising the question") are discussed below.
Circular argument
A circular argument is one which assumes the very thing it aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive. For example here is an attempt to prove that Paul is telling the truth:
- Suppose Paul is not lying.
- Whoever is not lying is telling the truth.
- Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.
These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is telling the truth."
It is important to note that such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument.
Strictly speaking, a circular argument has the following structure. For some proposition p
- p implies p
- suppose p
- therefore, p
The syntactic presentation of circular reasoning is rarely this transparent, as is shown, for example, in the above argument purportedly proving Paul is telling the truth.
Another kind of reasoning, which is not strictly speaking circular, is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion whose proof is not likely to be any easier.
- 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.
This reasoning is valid; moreover the first premise is strictly stronger than the conclusion. Indeed the first premise may be harder (or impossible) to prove, since it quantifies over many different kinds of intentional acts of killing human beings, such as acts of self-defense.
Note that reduction to a more general premise is often useful, particularly in mathematics: For instance, to prove that the sum of the first 244 integers is 29890, it is easier to first prove a more general assertion, such as
- The sum of the first n integers equals 1/2 times n times (n+1).
See also: circular definition
Raising the question
In much modern usage, sometimes criticized, the phrase has nothing to do with arguments in logic at all and merely refers to raising an issue. For instance: "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Such usage is seen to be incorrect, and the speaker should say "this raises the question" instead.
