Q&A: Begging the Question
Begging the Question
Question
Why, in your opinion, do philosophers treat begging the question as a logical fallacy if it is the only way to make a valid logical argument?
Answer
Only a blatant case of begging the question is a fallacy. Beyond that, sometimes your interlocutor is not aware of his own basic assumptions, and the debate will reveal to him that he actually believes in new basic assumptions. In such a case, presenting a valid logical argument that begs the question is very useful, because the person suddenly discovers that he too is begging the question and is persuaded.
Beyond that, if it is clear that your interlocutor disagrees with you about the conclusion, there is no point in presenting an argument that assumes the conclusion and building a logical argument on that basis. In that sense at least, it really is a fallacy. A logical argument only ever persuades those who are already persuaded.
Discussion on Answer
A blatant case is an argument that proves x on the basis of the assumption x. It is a valid argument and completely worthless. An argument that proves x on the basis of the assumptions x and also y is also fairly blatant, but less so. The less blatant it is, the more value the argument has.
I didn’t understand why “begging the question is the only way to make a valid logical argument,” as the questioner put it. Is there no logical argument without begging the question?
See the Rabbi’s article (it appears on the site), “Our Patriarch Abraham and His Hat — In Praise of Begging the Question.”
Now I see that the article appears here under a different name. In any case, here it is:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%90%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%94%d7%9d-%d7%90%d7%91%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%95-%d7%95%d7%9b%d7%95%d7%91%d7%a2%d7%95-%d7%91%d7%a9%d7%91%d7%97-%d7%94%d7%a0%d7%97%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%9e%d7%91%d7%95%d7%a7%d7%a9/
Read Truth and Untruth, Aharon. A good book.
The Rabbi wrote, “An argument that proves x on the basis of the assumptions x and also y is also fairly blatant, but less so. The less blatant it is, the more value the argument has.” How does adding assumptions that are not intrinsic to the proof itself (as in the Rabbi’s example that x and y prove x) erase the fallacy?? The fallacy is still there, and not only that, there are even unrelated assumptions. When the Rabbi says the argument has more value, does he mean only clarificatory value?
May isolation be entertaining for everyone.
You didn’t quote me correctly.
I quoted mikyab123, the commenter in the fourth comment from the beginning of the thread. Is that you?
That is completely me. Look again and you’ll see that you didn’t quote it correctly.
I didn’t understand the riddle. Is the quotation incorrect because it is partial?
My apologies. I saw the first sentence and not the second. (Haste is of the devil.) Sorry. 🙂
Obviously, the formulation X and also Y therefore X changes nothing about the argument. It is like X therefore X.
What I meant was that even if, on the level of logical analysis, this is a matter of adding assumptions, from the standpoint of appearances the argument may no longer be trivial. For example, think about a proof in geometry. The very existence of proofs shows that the conclusions are implicit within the axioms. That is, it is an argument of the type X and also Y therefore X. And yet the arguments there are really not trivial. The logical structure is (X and also Y) therefore Y, but the statement “X and also Y” is not formulated simply as X and also Y, but rather as something more complex.
At this early morning hour the Rabbi was hasty? The devil is working overtime for the Rabbi….
Secrets from the printing press. I only just now finished a column and sent it to Oren to upload. I’m in the middle of the activity now. 🙂
What do you mean by blatant? Who decides whether an assumption is blatant or not?