From all the sections we haven’t studied this far, I decided to take a look back on the fallacy known as begging the question. After reading about it the first time I really did not understand what it meant. After researching on the internet I found many examples and new explanations of this fallacy. Begging the question basically means that the conclusion appears in the beginning and in the end of the argument. The site gave this example:
· You should drive on the right side of the road because that is what the law says and the law is the law.
This example really helped me to understand this fallacy more because it gave me a clear example as to why this argument is weak. When you assume the validity of what the other person was questioning in the first place you are then begging the question. I’m not sure if it was just the example in the book that confused me the first time around but after doing additional research and finding this example I understand the topic much better.
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion.htm
Thank you for including the hyperlink in your post. This explanation makes better sense to me than that in the Epstein text. The book should have went into more detail. From the hyperlinked website, I learned that begging the question is also referred to as fallacies of presumption. So with this "better" explanation, begging the question is falsely presuming the validity of the argument by agreeing with the conclusion from the very beginning. One should not argue in a circle like this, but instead reason from the preceding premises. Knowing the definition of begging the question gives us the ability to avoid incorrect reasoning.
ReplyDeleteI was also really confused on what begging the question meant and your post really made it clearer for me. I now understand that is is more of a circular argument that uses part of the premises in the conclusion as well. Good evidence has to be of its own and separate from the conclusion that it is trying to support. It makes it clear why this kind of argument is considered weak, because no one wants to be listening to the same thing over and over again. I think it might have been the examples in the book that had me confused or the way it was explained. But the link you found was very helpful.
ReplyDelete