From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sat Jan 18 2003 - 23:00:00 GMT
Platt, DMB,
Matt said:
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 said:
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.
Matt:
Actually, I think its more specific than simply avoiding the question. It
means you are trying to answer a question in a way that's circular in
reasoning because a conclusion you reach is a specific and logical
consequence of a premise that another party doesn't accept. At least,
that's the way I will always be using the phrase because there are all
sorts of other ways to avoid an issue and question. For instance, never
responding to it. That's not necessarily begging the question.
Matt
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 - 22:56:07 GMT