Talk:Begging the question

The article of alternative usages of "Begging the question" provides evidence to the contrary of the article's claim

Currently, the article claims "The phrase "begs the question" is also commonly used in an entirely unrelated way to mean "prompts a question" or "raises a question", although such usage is sometimes disputed.[4]" This sounds like the cited reference from The Guardian provides evidence that "begs the question" is NOT used as "raise the question". However, the reference provides evidence, that "begs the question" is only rarely used as a fallacy and MOSTLY used as "raise the question". Thus, the change 20:26, 29 November 2023‎ is correct. Why was it reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:4485:7DA0:C42F:502B:E1F8:85A8 (talk)

Sorry, I don’t see the contradiction? The article supports that it is “commonly used […] to mean […] ‘raises a question’ ” but that it “is sometimes disputed”. Spidermario (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two usages of "begging the question": 1. fallacy uage, 2. "raise the question"-usage. My points are these: a) The article does not "dispute" anything. What it does it says, "Most of the time the usage 2 is applied, rarely the usage 1, so don't make a fuss if someone uses 2." This is still a long way from dispute the usage. b) The articles disputes the common application of usage 1. However, the Wikpedia-article says "The phrase "begs the question" is also commonly used in an entirely unrelated way to mean "prompts a question" or "raises a question", although such usage is sometimes disputed." The such is referring to usage 2 - in contrast to the The Guardian article. Was I able to express myself more clearly?

The article itself does not dispute usage 2, but it does mention that some people dispute it, therefore it supports the claim that usage 2 is sometimes disputed. Spidermario (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you quote the exact passage in the The Guardian article, which does this mentioning? I do not find it. It mentions that some people in a comment section (which seems to be the least credible source, Wikipedia could be quoting in my opinion), corrected an author of yet another article, when that author applied usage 2. However, this does not dispute the fact that usage 2 is applied. If anything, it confirms that usage 2 is applied, even if - as the commenters believe - it was a false usage. A false usage is still a usage. For example "begs the question is best avoided as it is almost invariably misused: it means assuming a proposition that, in reality, involves the conclusion ... What it does not mean is 'raises the question', and if you can substitute this phrase, it has been used wrongly." claims that usage 2 is wrong, but confirms that usage 2 is applied, just wrongly. There would be no point in discussing whether usage 2 is correct or wrong if it was never applied. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other? Maybe you talk about "disputing that using 'beg the question' in the sense of 'raise the question' is a correct usage", while I talk about "disputing that the phrase 'beg the question' is used in the sense of 'raise the question' at all"; could that be a source of misunderstanding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:4485:7DA0:19:F2CB:95B:21A5 (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh! That is indeed what I mean by “disputed”. Would “contested” be clearer then? Or maybe “objected to”? Spidermario (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that the word "disputed" is the issue in itself, but that it is ambiguous what is disputed. Is it the fact that "beg the question" is used in a certain way or whether this way of usage is valid? So, what the Wikipedia article should say is "..., although the validity of such usage is sometimes disputed.[4]" Additionally, most of the article is making the point that using "beg the question" as "raise the question" is fine. I think it is not a fair representation-wise to use the article to support the opposite point of view. Thus, I would simply add, "However, some argue that the usage in the sense of "raise the question" is in fact more common and should not be rejected." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:4485:7DA0:2D0A:9A2B:B364:31CF (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Deleted "Hero Man" example broke following paragraphs

I agree with 92.22.149.83's 12/9/20 removal of the bad example about "Hero Man". The problem is that it is germane to the paragraph (and Herrick quote) following it, which made no sense after this less than ideal example was removed and not replaced with a better one. And I find that following paragraph quite helpful, and completely confusing the way it was left incorrectly referencing what was meant to be a valid counterexample to begging the question (and incidentally unnecessary in my opinion.)

I just found and added what I think is a reasonable example to support the paragraph that follows it that is an example listed in Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap. Came upon the exmaple via a nice ThoughtCo article on the subject. Jeff Axelrod (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Title

Rather than perpetuating the mistake, shouldn't this article be titled "assuming the initial point" with a note that it is often mistranslated as "begging the question"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.146.26 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Incorrect" meaning

This edit by another editor was reverted with the explanation "POV". Quite by coincidence, I made almost the same edit. The original edit was correct and should have stood. The "POV" comment is bizarre. Anyone with any powers of observation can be in no doubt that in everyday English "beg the question" is almost always used with the "incorrect" meaning. Most people have no knowledge of the "correct" meaning. 86.129.206.245 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think my experience is a bit different than yours, but really what is needed her is some source which says what you assert. Paul August ☎ 02:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the misused form "beg the question" is grammatically incorrect, because in the intransitive form of "beg", it should be "beg for the question". The transitive form of "beg" has the target of begging as the object of the verb, e.g. "I beg you", "he begged the passer-by for help".24.69.25.223 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It being grammatically incorrect really has no bearing on the question at hand here, which is whether it is meaningful to deem as "incorrect" the most common usage of a phrase.172.98.135.43 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The question seems best answered by examples of modern ("incorrect") usage, which I hear just about every day on news programs, juxtaposed to former usages in rhetoric and argumentation which were in fact correct by the understanding of those users. As far as the transitive form of the verb I agree that's true in the majority of cases but think that usage is more elastic: "I am thirsty. I beg water of you." You could argue that it is more proper to phrase it differently but this seems idiomatic enough, though a little old fashioned. The question of the correctness of the use is really overshadowed by the obvious need in today's world for the modern meaning. Blueistrue (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This article begs the question: if I'm using "beg the question" incorrectly, how could I possibly tell?

About the only thing I get out of this article is that no-one can explain what "begging the question" actually means. The examples are painfully unclear, the writing muddy, and the writers/editors of this article seem absolutely determined to expound on their arcane knowledge without ever getting to the point.

This article probably needs to be blown up and restarted from scratch. At the very least, someone needs to come up with a simple, clear set of examples for what this phrase meant in its classic sense. I mean, it sure beats me. I read the article, and I still don't know. No wonder the modern meaning is completely trouncing the older one -- even its defenders can't coherently explain it! 70.27.3.143 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs a better explanation and example of something that "begs the question" in the older, formal sense of the term. I'm adding an example section to the top of the article. 209.165.166.193 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleting the erroneous or at best very confusing example in the first paragraph

The example relating to paranormal activity is clearly erroneous in my opinion as the writer of the passage assumed that a person needs to assume that paranormal activity is real in order to conclude that he has experienced a paranormal activity (and therefore infer that paranormal activity is real), which is not the case. The writer stated "something must be real for it to be experienced" as a part of his explanation, but the statement is of nothing more than the reason that a person who thinks he has experienced paranormal activity can logically infer that paranormal activity is real. I have decided to delete this example from the page. 134.87.133.113 (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

the freedom of speech example isn't a fallacy

The article claims that:

"To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments."

is a fallacy because the second clause is just a restatement of the first clause. I don't agree. The first clause talks about the the advantage to the State, while the second clause talks about advantage to the community. A state is not the same thing as a community. There is, to be sure, a hidden premise: that things which are advantageous to communities are also advantageous to states, and one could quibble about that. But if the listener accepts that premise as plausible, then there is no fallacy in the statement. 185.121.6.44 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"the State" is just a specific case of a community here; one could replace the word "community" with "State" and it would be the same argument. But it's not circular because the conclusion differs from the premise. It is however invalid, because there is a hidden and erroneous premise that what is highly conducive to the interests of a community must always be, on the whole, advantageous to it ... not so, as there could be other competing interests of the community. -- Jibal (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the first part. The OP here is confusing "a state" with "the state." The former just refers to a mid-level form of organization and government, generally somewhere between a city/town/village and a nation/country/republic. The latter is a broad term to refer to the governing body of a city/town/state/county/nation/republic/etc. It's a reference to the interests of the body in charge, that makes legislation and has an obligation to defend "the state's interest" in any law which restricts activities of anyone it applies to.

The second part is trickier. Yes, there can be competing interests, but there can also be competing situations of advantage. Something can advantage one party or group within a community and disadvantage others - but that is covered in the wording and you kind of glossed over that. Even your use of "always be" and "on the whole" are direct contradictions of one another. "On the whole" specifically means in the bulk of situations, not in all situations - it's the same thing as saying, "generally," "in most cases," "for the most part," etc. It's specifically clarifying that, while it is true more often than not, it is not going to be true in every single example.CleverTitania (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    "State" is not differentiated by the presence of a definite or indefinite article. (Compare "The state of Israel is ending negotiations," to, "A state, such as Israel, may decide to end negotiations." Both have the same meaning, referring to the government of Israel.) In the quote in question, however, it is differentiated by the use of capitalization which means here it refers to a government entity (capitalization isn't always used to make this clarification, relying on context often, but when capitalization is used like this, it is almost always referring to a government entity). The three terms "Nation" (the people), "State" (the government), and "Country" (the territorially bounded land associated with a Nation and/or State) often get sloppily confused. France is a State governing a Nation living in its Country. The US is a State composed of a federal union of individual member States who have joined that union over a couple centuries. The EU, too, is a State composed of a confederate union of individual member States (the EU is a confederation bordering on federation, while the US is a federation bordering on being a confederation—the difference between these is the level of sovereignty the member states can exercise inside and outside of the union).

    In the quote, it is talking about this meaning of "State" (a government entity), while the word "community" takes the place of "Nation" (both refer to the people governed by the State). "State" and "community" are not the same thing as one is referring to the government entity and "community" is referring to the people subject to that State. One could rewrite it as, "Freedom of speech is an advantage to the government because the individuals among the people can freely express their feelings." (Basically, turned into a question : How is the government going to correctly govern if its people can not freely tell it what things are going wrong?) — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Short definition

How about "pretends to demonstrate what it already assumes"?96.248.101.32 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)DeMikeal Brown

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the original thoughts of editors. If you can find some RS that uses that language, then it can be incorporated into the article. -- Jibal (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bad example

This is confusing to read:

All birds that are black are ravens; therefore, all birds that are not ravens are not black.

We should also include an example which has a *true* premise:

Asia is the largest continent; therefore, Asia has the largest area of any continent.

To ensure we don't mislead the reader into thinking "begging the question" necessarily means false premise.

Mateen Ulhaq (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The way the example is now stated doesn't really fit. The line is now:

Asia is not the smallest continent because it has the largest area of any continent.

But this does not align with the conclusion:

[...] assuming the initial premise to be correct also means assuming the conclusion is correct.

One can assume Asia is not the smallest without therefore assuming the it has the largest area.

ZAD-Man (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

All I know

"Begs the question" is always used incorrectly because nobody knows what it really means. 205.142.232.18 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Begging the question.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The description of the "classical" meaning is confusing

The description of the "classical" meaning is so confusig that now I wonder whether even Aristotle knew what he meant for it.
The "modern" meaning is very clear, but mostly thanks to the example given. Why not give a couple of examples for the "classical" one too, before trying to explain the concept in abstract and full generality? That is a basic teaching technique...
To be most effective, the "question" of the example should be something that the reader has no way to know whether it is true or false; and the argument should have three or four steps.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Does this beg the question?

"Prescriptivist grammarians and people versed in philosophy, logic, and law object to such usage as incorrect or, at best, unclear. This is because, it is claimed, the classical sense of Aristotelian logic is the correct one."

Does this sentence at the end of the article beg the question, or am I just confused? LouMichel (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the sentence does not beg the question, the passage describes people engaged in an argument that could be considered begging the question, in the Aristotelian fashion. Hence the "it is claimed" in the middle.

That said, it's pretty common within etymology to treat the first definition in history as the "correct" one, especially if it was in use for many years (centuries) before the secondary or modern usage. And that's doubly true if early examples of contemporary usage all appear to be the result of people misunderstanding the existing definition. So, their argument isn't exactly saying it's the correct one because it's correct, so much as it's the correct one because it's usage far predates the contemporary usage.

For myself though, I would really like to see an etymological breakdown of the contemporary usage, and see if those early examples did involve people incorrectly using the existing phrase, or if it was said by people who had never heard the original phrase. Because that would indicate whether or not it's a misusage or a dual evolution of the phrase - which is certainly plausible. CleverTitania (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't beg the question, but the argument given by prescriptivists does: The "modern" sense is incorrect because the classic sense is correct. As for "it's pretty common within etymology" -- etymology is not meaning, and has nothing to say about what is "correct usage". P.S. Gotta love the absurd putting-words-in-my-mouth claim that I'm arguing that etymology is not what etymology is defined to be; I of course am doing no such thing. Yeah, etymology includes study of historical usage. Again, that tells us nothing about "correct usage". The very fact that there is such a thing as "the evolution of a word's meaning" should make that clear. Etymology is an area of scientific investigation, not a normative arbiter ... science never tells us what is "correct" behavior. -- Jibal (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That etymology is not the end-all-be-all of definition or usage is certainly true. But to say etymology is neither meaning nor has anything to say about correct usage is bordering on absurd. Etymology is the study of the historical origin, usage and evolution of a word's meaning. You're basically arguing that etymology is not what etymology is defined to be. CleverTitania (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

New Usage

The ‘new’ usage does not arise from any fresh approach to rhetoric, but sheer ignorance, the misapplication of a precise term due to faulty understanding, or lazy learning. Like using ‘problematical’ to mean ‘difficult’ or ‘troublesome’.

‘I’m like really hungry and thirsty and stuff but I like left my wallet at home, so, yeah, that like begs the question of how I’m like gonna pay to eat and stuff. So, yeaahhhhhhhh…’ is a current misusage couched in a knucklehead idiom. --2001:44B8:3102:BB00:A533:3726:4EB6:E1FC (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Usage examples

Please see my comment in the "Incorrect" post above.

Regarding the question of whether it is correct to say begs the question when you mean something like calls for the question to be asked and dealt with: It seems best answered by examples of modern (so-called "incorrect") usage, which I hear just about every day on news programs, juxtaposed to former usages in rhetoric and argumentation which were in fact correct by the understanding of those users.

As far as whether the transitive form of the verb does NOT encompass begging [for] a thing, I agree that it is true in the majority of cases but think that the usage can be more elastic: "I am thirsty. I beg water of you." You could argue that it is more proper to phrase it differently ("I beg a man for water.") but the first example seems idiomatic enough, though a little old fashioned. In the first, "water" is the direct object while in the second "a man" is the direct object. Perhaps more examples of parallel usages to "begs the question" from published works could be provided to fill out the picture. If I find any I'll post them.

The question of the correctness of the use is really overshadowed by the obvious need in today's world for the modern meaning. There would be literally tens of thousands of examples if one were so inclined to comb through media transcripts. That part does not seem arguable at all. It means today what people think it means. It would, however, make everybody a little better informed if we understood the where the modern usage came from and how our ancestors spoke and thought. Blueistrue (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(note I'm not the above IP poster) IMHO that line of thought falls to pieces considering the choice to use the exact phrase “begs the question” (or any close misrecollection that was intended to be such,) rather than any other phrasing with the words “beg” or “question.” That is a clear indication such speakers are (dimly) aware of and struggling to refer to the specific logical fallacy, typically to lend a “highfalutin” air to their own speech, rather than innocently mashing together words in an arrangement that resembles the fallacy's name by coincidence.

Particularly risible is the closing paragraph of the article, incoherently dribbling that prescriptivists object to such abuses because we “hold them to be incorrect.” Uh, yeah, anyone who doesn't believe in categorization of “correct” and “incorrect” language as worthwhile, is by definition a descriptivist! 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:912A:6930:89B7:D3DA (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Common use of this phrase

I was under the impression that "begging the question", as commonly used, refers to someone making a statement which will prompt or require the response the speaker desires. For example, an employee being asked by a supervisor, "Doesn't our company have a great leadership team?" If the employee wants to remain employed, they are forced to say yes, if not to make a more flattering comment in praise of corporate leadership. I grew up in the New York City metropolitan area, perhaps this was just a local idiom. I am curious if anyone else hs a similar interpretation. 2001:558:6045:B5:4025:7A2F:4E54:EC5C (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You might be thinking of a loaded or leading question. NicolinoChess31415926 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Problematic example about sweaters and jackets at the beginning

In the second paragraph of the first section of the current version of the article, it is written that:

'For example, the statement that "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets because wool sweaters have higher wool content" begs the question because this statement assumes that higher wool content implies being a superior material.'

Let P denote the statement "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets because wool sweaters have higher wool content".

Let A denote the statement "for every wool sweater and every nylon jacket, if the wool sweater has higher wool content than the nylon jacket, then the wool sweater is superior to the nylon jacket".

(Note that this statement is weaker than the analogous statement with "wool sweater" replaced by "sweater".)

Regarding the explanation for the example:

Let B denote the statement "this statement assumes that higher wool content implies being a superior material".

I fail to see why B is true – since in general the quality of the sweaters is not solely determined by how good the material is, we can only infer from P that A, rather than "higher wool content implies being a superior material", and so it cannot be inferred that the latter is assumed. B can only be true in some specific contexts, but since no specification of the context has been made for this statement, it would be weird to assume the context to be one of the particular contexts under which the statement is true, instead of a general context. Hence regardless of whether the statement is begging the question, the explanation in the article of why it is begging the question is problematic.

Regarding whether the statement begs the question:

I fail to see how it can be inferred that P begs the question, because begging the question is the problem of an attempted justification of a statement by another unjustified statement that implies the statement, and:

• It is not clear if A has not been (independently) justified in the context of concern (where we are limited to considering only a certain kind of wool sweaters and a certain kind of wool sweaters), since no context has been given. In order for this statement to be begging the question, the underlying context must not contain a justification of A, which would be the case if the context is given to be the general (i.e. unrestricted) context (since A is obviously not a part of general knowledge, and in fact most people would assume it to be in general false).

• A implies that "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets" if and only if e.g. one assumes that "wool sweaters" necessarily have higher wool content than "nylon jackets". I suppose this assumption is true by common sense for many people, but just from the names "wool sweaters" and "nylon jackets" I personally could not be completely certain that a "wool sweater" necessarily has more wool content than a "nylon jacket" of the same size, since I was considering the (epistemic) possibility that e.g. regardless of how much wool a jacket contains, as long as it contains [a certain sufficiently large mass depending on the size of the jacket] of nylon, it'd be called a "nylon jacket", in which case it is logically possible for it to contain a greater mass of wool than a "wool sweater" of the same size. In fact, note the ambiguity as to what is meant by "wool content" – does it refer to the percentage or the mass? If it refers to the mass, then it seems quite plausible that some really thick nylon jacket does contain more wool than a really thin wool sweater of the same size.

LRC.WK (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the example to use the same wording as the reference. Yannn¹¹ 22:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A better definition?

"In modern usage it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it"

Can "supporting it" be replaced by another verb or extended and made more specific via "supporting it by. . ."?

In the following examples, the premises indeed seem to "support" or agree with the conclusions. So for the layperson, can the definition be sharpened? Can counterexamples/fixes be added? 2600:1700:5B2C:A090:CD71:6CF5:98EB:EF87 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

How about, "the premises do not provide independent grounds or reasons for accepting the conclusion"? Or, "the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it with independent grounds or reasons"? Dezaxa (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect examples

The examples currently posted in first paragraph are incorrect.

In detail:

People have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Therefore, the earth is round.

This is appeal to popularity, not begging the question.

Coca Cola is the most popular soft drink in the world. Therefore, no other soft drink is as popular as Coca Cola.

This is just deduction. If the first sentence is untrue then it's a false premise, but the logic is sound.

God possesses all the virtues. Benevolence is a virtue. Therefore, God is benevolent.

Again, this is just deduction. If the first sentence is untrue then it's a false premise, but the logic is sound.

The following would be better examples of begging the question:

Glancing into the lengthy criminal record of the accused will reveal a history of conflict with the law.

A lengthy criminal record is indeed bound to contain some sort of mention of the accused being in conflict with the law. However, it is not formerly stated as a premise that such a record exists, and the conclusion is false if it doesn't.

Being able to factorize the positive natural number N into two unique sets of prime numbers proves that the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is false.

This sentence is correct if the existence of a number N is granted. However, it is not stated as a premise but implied within the sentence. Should such a number not exist (and it doesn't), the conclusion is false. 165.225.206.228 (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. Question begging, as the article states, is usually understood to mean the informal fallacy of assuming the conclusion within the premises. This may be because the argument is circular, or somewhat more generally that the argument assumes a premise that is itself just as much in need of justification as the conclusion. The fallacy is informal because a circular argument is formally valid. The most extreme case of a circular argument is "P; therefore P". There is nothing wrong with the logic; P does indeed have P as its logical consequence. But the argument has no epistemic value since we would not accept the premise if we did not already accept the conclusion. Question-begging is concerned with a failure to supply reasons or grounds for the conclusion, not a fault in the logic. Your examples seem to be cases of unstated or hidden premises. Dezaxa (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with IP on "Coca Cola is the most popular soft drink in the world. Therefore, no other soft drink is as popular as Coca Cola."

I read this and was very confused by what we are trying to demonstrate here. The conclusion follows from the hypothesis. I'm removing it Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Raising the question and vernacular

People so often misuse this phrase, I think it would be helpful to have a: "Not to be confused with 'raising/prompting the question' at the start. However, the existing notice is there because of a template, and there is no article for "raising the question" but there is this article's section on "vernacular." Consequently, I have two questions.

1. Can "Vernacular" be changed to something more meaningful, e.g., "Vernacular for 'raising the question'".

2. Can we have something at the head of the article noting a "not to be confused with" the "raising the question", even if it's not using that template. -Reagle (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)