Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Begging the question

Begging the question, also known as petitio principii in Latin, is a logical fallacy in which the premises of an argument assume the truth of the conclusion, either directly or through equivalent statements, thereby providing no independent evidence or justification for the claim being made.^[1]^[2]^[3] This circular structure renders the reasoning invalid, as it fails to advance the discussion or demonstrate the conclusion's validity beyond mere restatement.^[4] The fallacy can manifest subtly, such as through synonymous phrasing or unstated presuppositions that embed the conclusion within the premises.^[5] The origins of the concept trace back to ancient Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, where he critiques arguments that assume the point at issue, such as claiming the soul causes its own life and thus is a self-mover without proving the causal link.^[6] Aristotle identified this as a failure in demonstrative reasoning, where premises must be prior and better known than the conclusion to avoid circularity.^[7] The Latin term petitio principii, meaning "request for the initial point," emerged in medieval scholasticism as a translation of Aristotle's idea, emphasizing the improper assumption of a foundational principle.^[8] By the 16th century, English translations rendered it as "begging the question," drawing on the verb "beg" in the sense of taking something for granted without proof, as seen in early logical texts.^[9] In practice, begging the question often appears in debates, rhetoric, and everyday arguments through forms like direct circularity or loaded definitions. For instance, stating "Active euthanasia is morally acceptable because it is a decent, ethical way to end suffering" merely rephrases the conclusion as a premise without evidence.^[5] Another example is "Butch is afraid of heights because he has acrophobia," where "acrophobia" is defined as fear of heights, offering no new information.^[4] This fallacy differs from other circular arguments by specifically presupposing the disputed point, making it a subtle threat to sound reasoning in philosophy, law, and science.^[10] A notable aspect of the phrase in modern English is its widespread misuse to mean "raising the question" or prompting further inquiry, rather than indicating circularity—a shift that gained traction in the mid-20th century through journalistic and casual usage.^[9] Despite this evolution, in formal logic and critical thinking, the traditional meaning persists as essential for identifying flawed arguments.^[11]

Philosophical Foundations

Aristotelian Origins

The concept of begging the question originates with Aristotle's analysis of logical demonstration in his Prior Analytics. In Book II, Chapter 16, Aristotle identifies it as a failure in syllogistic reasoning where a premise assumes the truth of the conclusion without providing independent proof, thereby undermining the argument's validity.^[12] This error occurs when the demonstration relies on what needs to be demonstrated, preventing genuine knowledge acquisition from first principles.^[13] Aristotle defines begging the question precisely as "proving that which is not self-evident by means of itself," emphasizing that true demonstration (apodeixis) must proceed from prior, known principles to posterior conclusions, not vice versa.^[12] He distinguishes it from circular reasoning, noting that while circular arguments assume mutual dependence between premises and conclusion, begging the question involves assuming the conclusion outright without establishing its self-evidence, rendering the proof illusory.^[12] Begging the question occurs directly, by assuming the point itself, or indirectly, through equivalent terms or chains of premises that presuppose it. These forms highlight how subtle linguistic or conceptual shifts can disguise the assumption, evading scrutiny in dialectical exchanges. In the broader context of Aristotle's syllogistic logic, as outlined in the Prior Analytics, begging the question directly contravenes the requirements for scientific demonstration (apodeixis), which demands premises that are true, primary, and better known than the conclusion to yield certain knowledge.^[12] By assuming unproven elements, such arguments fail to advance understanding, reducing potential proofs to mere restatements and highlighting the need for rigorous separation of premises from conclusions in logical inquiry.^[13] This foundational critique influenced later philosophical traditions, where the Greek τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι ("asking for the starting point") evolved into the Latin petitio principii.

Development in Scholastic Logic

The scholastic tradition formalized and expanded the concept of begging the question, building upon Aristotelian roots by integrating it into Latin terminology and theological discourse. In the 6th century, Boethius translated Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations into Latin, coining the term petitio principii to render the Greek expression for assuming the initial point, literally meaning "petition of the principle" or "assuming what is at issue."^[14] This translation preserved and transmitted the fallacy to medieval thinkers, establishing it as a central element in logical analysis.^[15] By the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas applied logical principles, including avoiding petitio principii, in his theological arguments for God's existence in the Summa Theologica, ensuring premises do not presuppose the conclusion. Later scholastics like John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham introduced nuanced distinctions in their logical treatises. Scotus, in works such as the Ordinatio, analyzed subtle variants of petitio principii in metaphysical arguments, highlighting how assuming intermediate principles could covertly presuppose the conclusion.^[16] Ockham discussed forms of petitio principii in his Summa Logicae (Part III-2, Chapter 15), including direct and indirect assumptions that presuppose the conclusion. These refinements sharpened the fallacy's identification in complex syllogisms. The concept profoundly influenced disputationes in medieval universities, such as those at Paris and Oxford, where structured debates required participants to detect petitio principii to refute opponents. Identifying this fallacy was crucial for maintaining logical rigor, as it invalidated arguments in quaestiones disputatae, fostering a culture of precise dialectical engagement.^[17]

Formal Definition and Analysis

Core Elements

Begging the question, formally known as petitio principii, is a logical fallacy wherein an argument's premises implicitly or explicitly assume the truth of its conclusion, creating a circular structure that fails to offer substantive proof or justification. This renders the reasoning non-demonstrative, as it relies on the very proposition it seeks to establish rather than providing external support. The fallacy originates from the Latin phrase meaning "assuming the initial point," a concept traced to Aristotle's logical works.^[18]^[3] The core structural elements of begging the question can be outlined as follows: (1) the conclusion is restated or presupposed within the premises, often in equivalent or disguised terms; (2) the premises lack independent evidence or justification beyond the assumed conclusion; and (3) the central assumption directly pertains to the disputed issue, bypassing the need for proof. These components ensure that the argument does not progress beyond mere restatement, undermining its persuasive or evidential value in dialectical contexts.^[19]^[20] This fallacy must be distinguished from valid tautologies, which are statements true by virtue of their logical form or definitional necessity and thus require no further proof within the argumentative framework. In contrast, begging the question employs unproven assumptions that are pivotal to the debate, failing to resolve the contention through independent reasoning.^[3]^[21] Philosophically, begging the question is categorized as a material fallacy, involving an error in the argument's content or substantive assumptions rather than a defect in its formal logical structure, which may otherwise appear sound. This classification highlights how the fallacy evades genuine demonstration by smuggling the conclusion into the premises.^[18]^[19]

Methods of Identification

One practical approach to identifying begging the question involves a three-step analytical process. First, isolate the argument's conclusion—the specific claim being advanced. Second, dissect the premises to check if any restate the conclusion in different words or embed its key assumptions without justification. Third, evaluate whether the premises offer independent evidence or merely circle back to the conclusion, thereby failing to advance the argument. This method highlights cases where the argument's support is illusory, as the premises do not genuinely substantiate the claim.^[5]^[22]^[3] Argument diagramming tools, particularly the Toulmin model, provide a visual framework for uncovering hidden circularity. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model breaks arguments into components: the claim (conclusion), data (evidence), warrant (reasoning rule), backing (support for the warrant), qualifiers (conditions), and rebuttals (exceptions). Begging the question becomes evident when the data or warrant essentially replicates the claim or relies on unproven assumptions equivalent to it, revealing a lack of substantive grounds. By mapping the argument this way, analysts can spot where the structure collapses into self-reinforcement rather than progression toward proof.^[23] Common linguistic indicators often betray begging the question, including vague or loaded terms that smuggle in the conclusion, such as "obviously," "self-evident," or "by definition" without further elaboration. These phrases presuppose acceptance of the claim, bypassing the need for evidence and masking the circularity. For instance, defining a disputed concept in a way that incorporates the conclusion can create an illusion of support, but scrutiny reveals no new information. Such signals prompt closer inspection of whether the language conceals assumption rather than argument.^[1]^[24] In critical thinking education, these identification methods are reinforced through targeted exercises in logic textbooks. Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen's Introduction to Logic, a seminal resource, features practice problems where students analyze passages to detect begging the question, training them to differentiate presumptive premises from valid ones. These exercises, spanning multiple editions, emphasize repeated application to build proficiency in spotting the fallacy in real-world discourse, fostering skills essential for rigorous evaluation.^[3]^[25]

Illustrative Examples

Classical Illustrations

One of the earliest illustrations of begging the question appears in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, where he critiques arguments that assume the point at issue under a different description. For instance, Aristotle describes a fallacious proof involving the soul by asserting that "the soul is the cause of life in itself" since it is a self-mover, noting that this presupposes the conclusion without providing independent evidence.^[6] This circularity fails because the premise assumes the very attribute (self-motion causing life) it seeks to establish, offering no external validation or new information to support the claim.^[26] In medieval philosophy, St. Anselm's ontological argument in the Proslogion provides another classical case, where he defines God as "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived" and argues that such a being must exist in reality, since existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. Critics, including later scholastics and modern logicians, identify this as begging the question because the definition embeds existence as a necessary perfection, thereby assuming the conclusion (God's real existence) within the initial premise without independent justification. The argument thus circles back on itself, relying on the contested notion that existence is a predicate inherent to maximal greatness, rather than demonstrating it through separate reasoning.^[27] Cicero, in his Topica, discusses forms of invalid proof including circular argumentation (circulus in probando). A classic illustration of this tautological structure is the claim that "Socrates is just because he is honest, and honest because he is just." This fails as a valid inference because each premise simply rephrases the other, creating a loop that assumes the conclusion (Socrates' justice) without appealing to any external evidence or criterion to break the cycle.^[28] In each case, the failure stems from the premises' dependence on the conclusion for their own justification, rendering the arguments non-productive and incapable of persuading those who do not already accept the embedded assumption. This lack of independent support distinguishes begging the question from sound demonstration, as emphasized in classical logic.^[18]

Contemporary Instances

In political discourse, begging the question frequently appears in debates over gun control, as seen in arguments like "We must ban guns because only criminals use them." This statement assumes without independent evidence that all gun misuse stems exclusively from criminals, thereby presupposing the very conclusion that gun bans would effectively reduce violence by targeting only illicit users.^[29] In scientific debates, the fallacy manifests when explanations rely on unproven assumptions about underlying processes, such as critics claiming that arguments for evolution beg the question by assuming naturalistic explanations for the diversification of life, ruling out alternatives like intelligent design without independent justification.^[30] Media and advertising often employ begging the question to promote products, exemplified by claims like "This diet works because it's scientifically proven." The assertion rests on the unestablished notion that the diet's efficacy has been rigorously demonstrated, using the supposed proof as the basis for affirming its success.^[31] In the 21st century, begging the question has gained prevalence in social media echo chambers, where users reinforce beliefs by citing biased or self-referential sources as evidence, amplifying circular arguments within ideologically homogeneous networks. Studies highlight how platforms exacerbate this by algorithmically prioritizing confirmatory content, leading to polarized discussions where premises assume conclusions without scrutiny.^[32]

Circular Argumentation

A circular argument, also known as circular reasoning, constitutes a logical fallacy wherein the conclusion of the argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in the premises, thereby failing to provide independent support for the claim being advanced.^[33] This form of reasoning creates a loop in which the truth of the conclusion is used to justify the premises, rendering the argument non-productive and invalid as a means of establishing new knowledge.^[34] In essence, the argument begs the issue by presupposing what it sets out to prove, often through a chain of propositions that ultimately circles back to the initial assumption.^[35] Circular arguments can be categorized into subtypes based on their structure and subtlety. Gross or direct circularity occurs when the conclusion is essentially restated in the premises without any intermediary steps, such as claiming "Opium induces sleep because it possesses dormitive properties," where the premise merely rephrases the effect as the cause.^[3] In contrast, sophisticated or indirect circularity involves a more elaborate loop through multiple premises or inferences that indirectly support one another, creating an illusion of progression before returning to the starting point; for instance, a multi-step argument where each premise relies on the others in a closed cycle without external validation.^[36] These subtypes highlight how circularity can range from overt repetition to concealed interdependence, both undermining the argument's evidential value.^[3] Begging the question represents a specific manifestation of circularity, wherein the disputed point itself is smuggled into the premises as an unargued assumption, distinguishing it as a targeted presumption within the broader category of circular reasoning.^[18] For example, the assertion "The Bible is true because it is God's word, and we know it is God's word because the Bible says so" exemplifies this relation, as the premises circularly affirm the conclusion without addressing the core contention of divine authority.^[1] While all instances of begging the question are circular, not all circular arguments rise to the level of begging by directly assuming the contested issue.^[3] The concept of the "vicious circle" in logical discourse traces back to John Locke, who employed the term in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) to critique definitions and arguments that loop unproductively, such as his example of justice defined in terms that presuppose property rights without justification, thereby illustrating a non-virtuous circularity that fails to advance understanding.^[3] Locke's analysis emphasized how such circles obstruct genuine inquiry by masquerading as explanatory.

Presupposition Fallacies

Presupposition fallacies, also known as fallacies of presumption involving hidden assumptions, arise when an argument depends on unproven background beliefs or propositions that are implicitly accepted as true without justification. These fallacies differ from more overt errors by embedding the problematic assumption in the structure of the argument or question, often making it difficult to challenge directly.^[37] A classic example is the loaded question, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?", which presupposes that the respondent has a wife and has previously engaged in spousal abuse, forcing any direct answer (yes or no) to imply acceptance of these unestablished claims. This form of presupposition traps the responder in a dilemma, as denying the act would still affirm the existence of the wife and past abuse. S. Morris Engel describes this as the complex question fallacy in his analysis of informal fallacies, where multiple questions are compounded into one, smuggling in an unsupported premise.^[37]^[38] Key types include the complex question fallacy, which combines distinct issues into a single query to presuppose a controversial point. This type highlights how presuppositions can undermine an argument by bypassing the need to defend foundational elements.^[39] Unlike begging the question (petitio principii), where the conclusion is directly assumed in the premises through circularity, presupposition fallacies involve hidden or incidental assumptions that support the argument but are not equivalent to the conclusion itself. In begging the question, the premise essentially restates the conclusion, creating a loop; in contrast, presuppositions are often peripheral background facts that, if challenged, reveal the argument's weakness without mirroring the end claim. This distinction clarifies boundaries in informal logic, as noted in standard texts like Engel's With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, which categorizes such errors under presumptive flaws and provides tools for identification.^[40]^[41]

Linguistic Evolution

Traditional Philosophical Usage

In traditional philosophical discourse, "begging the question," or petitio principii, refers to a formal logical fallacy in which an argument assumes as a premise the very point it seeks to prove, rendering the reasoning circular and invalid within deductive frameworks. This strict usage, reserved for critiques of arguments that presuppose their conclusions without independent justification, traces its foundations to Aristotle's identification of it as one of thirteen fallacies in dialectical reasoning in his Sophistical Refutations, where he described it as begging the original question by covertly including the conclusion in the premises.^[42] Medieval scholastics further refined this concept, emphasizing its role in scholastic disputations to expose unsubstantiated assumptions in theological and metaphysical proofs. By the 19th century, philosophers like John Stuart Mill upheld this precise application in logical analysis, particularly warning against its occurrence in applied fields such as political economy. In A System of Logic (1843), Mill dedicates a section in Book V, Chapter VII to petitio principii, defining it as a subtle form of begging the question where the premises covertly embody the conclusion, often through complex reasoning in a circle.^[43] Mill's treatment underscores the fallacy's danger in practical philosophy, where it can mask ideological biases as logical necessities. In early 20th-century analytic philosophy, the concept played a central role in foundational critiques, as seen in Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica (1910–1913), which sought to derive all of mathematics from pure logic without assuming mathematical truths as primitives in axiomatic systems.^[44] This technical usage persisted in academic writing throughout the 20th century, with style guides reinforcing its distinction from emerging vernacular meanings. The Chicago Manual of Style (18th edition, 2024), in section 5.250, explicitly recommends preserving the logical sense of "begging the question" as assuming the point at issue, advising authors to avoid its misuse as "raising" or "evading" a question to maintain precision in scholarly prose. Such guidance reflects ongoing efforts in philosophical and rhetorical traditions to safeguard the term's rigor against linguistic drift.

Modern Vernacular Misuse

In the late 20th century, the phrase "begging the question" began shifting in popular English usage from its traditional logical sense to mean "raising" or "inviting" a further question, with notable early appearances in journalistic writing during the 1980s. For instance, constructions like "This victory begs the question: What's next?" started appearing in news contexts, illustrating how the expression was repurposed to introduce an inquiry rather than denote circular reasoning.^[9]^[45] This linguistic drift stems primarily from confusion with the concept of "raising the question," exacerbated by widespread unfamiliarity with the original Latin term petitio principii (meaning "assuming the initial point") and its philosophical roots. The phonetic and semantic ambiguity of "beg" as prompting or soliciting further thought contributed to the reinterpretation, while early signs of variation were observed as far back as H.W. Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), which documented subtle drifts toward non-technical interpretations even then.^[46]^[47] The evolution has sparked ongoing debates between prescriptivists and descriptivists. Usage authorities like Bryan Garner, in Garner's Modern English Usage (5th ed., 2022), strongly condemn the modern sense as a "skunked term"—an expression so contested that it risks misunderstanding—and classify it as erroneous, urging adherence to the logical fallacy meaning. In contrast, descriptivist sources such as Merriam-Webster have accepted both senses since the 1990s, defining "beg the question" to include eliciting a reaction or response, reflecting how language adapts to common practice.^[48]^[49]^[46] This vernacular shift has permeated U.S. media, fostering imprecision in public discourse by diluting a precise logical term into a casual prompt for discussion. Outlets like The New York Times have frequently employed the misused form, as seen in articles and style discussions acknowledging its commonality, while similar patterns appear in CNN reporting, where the phrase often introduces speculative questions without reference to circularity. Such widespread adoption undermines clarity in analytical writing and debate, prioritizing rhetorical flow over conceptual accuracy.^[50]^[51]

References

[1]
Begging the Question : Department of Philosophy
The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
[2]
beg the question | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion.
[3]
Petitio Principii (Begging the Question or Circular Argument)
Circular arguments are epistemic variations of the fallacy, whereas the begging the question fallacies are dialectical failures. The varieties of petitio ...
[4]
Begging the Question
Begging the Question. One meaning of the term "beg" is "to take for granted without justification." To "beg the question," then, is to attempt to answer a ...
[5]
Fallacies - UNC Writing Center
Begging the question. Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect than many of the other fallacies we've discussed.
[6]
Posterior Analytics by Aristotle - The Internet Classics Archive
It would be begging the question, for example, to contend that the soul is that which causes its own life, and that what causes its own life is a self ...
[7]
Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate - CSUN
Jan 29, 2001 · Petitio principii (begging the question). This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[8]
Critical Thinking - Persuasion in Ancient Greece - bingdev
The Latin term is petitio principii, usually translated as "begging the question": the fallacy "begs" (petit), better, "seeks to establish," one of its ...
[9]
"Begging the question": we have answers - Language Log
Apr 29, 2010 · "Begging the question" get re-purposed in common usage to mean "dodging the question" or "raising the question".
[10]
Logical Fallacies | University Writing & Speaking Center
Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning. Affirming the claim in a circular manner that essentially supports itself. Is your claim supported by something ...
[11]
[PDF] PHIL 110 Logic and Critical Thinking Course Reader (Textbook)
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) . ... raising the question'; this is an extremely common usage, but it is wrong. You might hear a newscaster say ...Missing: misuse | Show results with:misuse
[12]
Prior Analytics by Aristotle - The Internet Classics Archive
... prior. Now begging the question is none of these: but since we get to know some things naturally through themselves, and other things by means of something ...Missing: Chapter petitio principii
[13]
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/aristotle-prior_analytics/1938/pb_LCL325.485.xml
[14]
The Project Gutenberg eBook of 'Logic Inductive And Deductive By ...
The phrase of which Petitio Principii or Begging the Question is a translation— τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι —was applied by Aristotle to an argumentative trick in ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[15]
[PDF] ANCIENT LOGIC AND ITS MODERN INTERPRETATIONS
Aristotle illustrates 'begging the question' with a brief reference to "those who think they draw parallel lines". A satis- factory explanation of this ...
[16]
Medieval Theories of the Categories
Apr 14, 2006 · ... Duns Scotus, and Ockham, among others, though apparently not by ... The second error, Scotus argues, is begging the question. Any ...
[17]
Logica, or Summa Lamberti - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Nov 22, 2015 · ... translation for 'petitio principii', but 'begging the question' has become traditional. (173,26) Again, using 'snub' instead of 'simian' for ...
[18]
Fallacies - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
May 29, 2015 · Begging the question is explained as asking for the answer (the proposition) which one is supposed to prove, in order to avoid having to make a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[19]
Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(3) The fallacies of illegitimate presumption include Begging the Question, False Dilemma, No True Scotsman, Complex Question and Suppressed Evidence. The ...Introduction · Taxonomy of Fallacies · Pedagogy · What is a Fallacy?
[20]
Begging the Question - Philosophy Home Page
Petitio principii is considered to be a fallacy is not that the inference is invalid (because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but that the ...
[21]
Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question
The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a ...
[22]
Identifying Illogical Arguments | The Writing Studio
To beg the question is to assume that which you are trying to prove. When prompted to give support, the author simply begs off and restates the conclusion.
[23]
27. Identifying Reasoning Patterns and Fallacies - PALNI Pressbooks
” If we call back to the Toulmin model (in the previous chapter), we ... Begging the question: occurs when the data is little more than a restatement ...
[24]
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii): Fallacious Circular Reasoning
Begging the question (also called petitio principii or circular reasoning) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premise depends on or is ...
[25]
[PDF] Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copi Carl Cohen Kenneth McMahon ...
Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. When we reason about any matter, we produce arguments ...
[26]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/
[27]
Aristotle's Logic - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Mar 18, 2000 · “Begging the Question As a Criticism of an Argument in Itself in Topics 8.11”, History and Philosophy of Logic, 37: 33–77. –––, 2017. “Aristotle ...
[28]
Five logical fallacies often used in political and policy debate
(4) Begging the Question Fallacy. Also known as: assuming the initial point, chicken and the egg, and circular reasoning. In an argument ...
[29]
The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory | Issue 46
Begging the Question - the fallacy of using the conclusion of an ... Once again, evolution by natural selection is not, and was never meant to be ...
[30]
Examples of Begging the Question in Advertising - Podify.io
Mar 14, 2024 · Diet Programs: A diet program may convey the message, "Enroll in our program or risk remaining in poor health indefinitely." This ...
[31]
The interplay between progressivism and logical fallacy - IOP Science
This study examines how the ideological underpinnings of conservatism and liberalism, combined with logical fallacies and fake news, shape public perceptions of ...
[32]
Circular Reasoning Fallacy | Definition & Examples - Scribbr
May 1, 2023 · The circular reasoning fallacy is an argument that assumes the very thing it is trying to prove is true. It simply repeats the conclusion.How does circular reasoning... · Circular reasoning fallacy...
[33]
Logical Fallacies - Purdue OWL
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points.Missing: methods | Show results with:methods
[34]
Circular Reasoning - Logically Fallacious
Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning ...
[35]
What Is a Circular Argument? | Grammarly
Nov 3, 2022 · A circular argument, also known as circular reasoning, is an incorrect argument that tries to prove itself using its conclusion as evidence, ...
[36]
Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question
Dec 2, 2022 · Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (6th edition, 2000), pp. 167-171. David Hackett Fischer, Historians' ...
[37]
Complex Question Fallacy - Logically Fallacious
A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims.
[38]
Complex Question Fallacy—Definition and Examples - ThoughtCo
May 18, 2025 · A complex question is a fallacy in which the answer to a given question presupposes a prior answer to a prior question.Missing: presupposition | Show results with:presupposition
[39]
Begging the Question Fallacy | Definition & Examples - Scribbr
May 31, 2023 · Begging the question fallacy is an argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It is an attempt to prove something is true.
[40]
With good reason : an introduction to informal fallacies
Jun 16, 2021 · With good reason : an introduction to informal fallacies. by: Engel, S. Morris, 1931-. Publication date: 1994. Topics: Fallacies (Logic), Logic.Missing: presupposition complex question
[41]
The Petitio: Aristotle's Five Ways | Canadian Journal of Philosophy
Jan 1, 2020 · The fact is that the petitio has had a lengthy and interesting history, and in this paper we shall want to explore certain features of its ...
[42]
SOL Book 5, Chapter 7, John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic - LAITS
The fallacy I mean is that of Petitio Principii, or begging the question, including the more complex and not uncommon variety of it which is termed Reasoning in ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[43]
[PDF] John Stuart Mill - A System of Logic - Early Modern Texts
English name for this used to be 'begging the question', but that phrase has recently come to mean 'raising the question'. ('That begs the question of what ...
[44]
Principia Mathematica - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
May 21, 1996 · Principia Mathematica, the landmark work in formal logic written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, was first published in three volumes in 1910, ...
[45]
Wittgenstein: Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
As per Pritchard, here Wittgenstein would claim that the same logic of our ways of inquiry presupposes that some propositions are excluded from doubt; and ...
[46]
Why 'Begs the Question' Doesn't Mean What You Think it Does
Dec 11, 2009 · “Begging the question” is a logical fallacy, a form of “circular reasoning” in which the desired conclusion is planted in the premise to be argued.
[47]
Definition of BEG THE QUESTION
### Summary of "Beg the Question" from Merriam-Webster
[48]
To beg the question - The Grammarphobia Blog
Nov 29, 2021 · And this is the latest: “The vulgar equivalent for petitio principii is begging the question” (A Treatise on Logic, 1870, by Francis Bowen). We ...
[49]
What Does 'Beg the Question' Mean? Definition, Meaning, Usage
Apr 29, 2016 · "He thought I was a little too soft on 'begging the question,'" Garner said. "He was insisting that 'begging the question' must always be ...
[50]
Begs the Question - Quick and Dirty Tips
Apr 25, 2023 · They're the same thing. It's circular reasoning. If you don't make some kind of argument, you're said to be begging the question.
[51]
Begging the Question, Again - The New York Times Web Archive
Sep 25, 2008 · YOU: That's not begging the question. That's simply raising the question. ME: Huh? My use is incorrect, though it is becoming extremely common.
[52]
ON LANGUAGE; Take My Question Please! - The New York Times
Jul 26, 1998 · Begging the question is a logically invalid form of argument that uses the point to be proven as part of the argument for its proof.