From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jan 18 2003 - 20:21:30 GMT
Matt wrote:
Your logic book probably says something like this on the
"begging the question fallacy": "arriving at a conclusion from statements
that themselves are questionable and have to be proved but are assumed
true." Now, granted, this definition begs the question in favor of our
ability to prove (the implication being in some "necessarily/absolutely
certain" kind of way) statements, which I don't think is really possible.
When I say you are begging the question, I'm saying that you are accepting
a premise that I don't accept, therefore your conclusion isn't one I'm
likely to also reach. I'm saying the consequences you draw aren't
consequences of my position, they are consequences of either your position
or some other position you've just created to look like me.
> DMB says:
> To beg a question is simply to avoid it. To beg an issue is a failure to
> address it. Its not any more complicated than that.
Actually David, it is more complicated than that. To 'beg the question' is
to employ a premise in an argument which assumes the truth of the argument's
conclusion. For some examples, see a web page like
http://skepdic.com/begging.html
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 18 2003 - 20:18:32 GMT