I Beg Your Question?
Herbert: Government must ensure that every schoolchild, no matter how impoverished, gets a hot meal for lunch at the school cafeteria.
Alfred: That begs the question, should government be responsible for the dietary needs of every citizen?
Curmudgeonly Writer: Uh, Alfred (*tap*tap*tap*)....b-z-z-z-z-z-z! Wron-g-g-g-g-g-g!
Begging the question does not mean "suggest the question". When Herbert said what he said, Alfred decided to demonstrate his highbrow literacy, and, instead, earned himself the dunce cap for the day.
No, begging the question is a form of faulty logic in an argument. When you reach a conclusion that is based on premises that presume the conclusion is true, you've begged the question. One of the most widely used examples of begging the question is the "Master Designer" argument for the existence of God (please, theists, no rotten tomatoes--I'm just talking logic here, not theology).
The "Master Designer" argument goes like this: (1) The universe is an orderly place. For example, the earth is just close enough to the sun to warm our planet and enable life forms to exist, yet not too close to burn us up. Some animals eat plants, other animals eat animals, and it all eventually goes back into the ground as plant food. (2) Nothing so orderly is imaginable without the existence of a creator, which we call God. (3) Therefore, God must exist.
So we have two premises (statements #1 and #2) and one conclusion (statement #3). But take a look at #2. It's already assumed the existence of God, right? So it's not a premise, it's a conclusion, right? Right. That's called begging the question, also known as circular reasoning.
Now let's go back to Herbert. There's nothing wrong with arguing in favor of using government resources (i.e., tax dollars) to provide for needy children. In fact, doing so will probably get my vote, because, curmudgeonly or not, I'm a card-carrying Bleeding Heart Liberal. But if Herbert had said: (1) There are children who go through the schoolday without a nourishing meal at lunch; (2) one of the roles of government is to help children whose families are too poor (or stupid, or lazy) to give their kids a proper diet; therefore, (3) we must install government programs that fund hot meals in every school in the country, then Herbert just begged the gol-darned question, because #2 assumes that government programs that fund hot meal programs (#3) is one of the roles of government (#2). Which is sort of what Alfred was getting at, albeit half-assedly.
Recognizing question-begging may help you the next time an elected official says something that sounds right, yet leaves you scratching your head, wondering, "what the hell did I just miss?"
By the way, the premise-premise-conclusion method of logical argument, when correctly done, is called a syllogism, not to be confused with the psylocybin that Alfred took.
Herbert: Government must ensure that every schoolchild, no matter how impoverished, gets a hot meal for lunch at the school cafeteria.
Alfred: That begs the question, should government be responsible for the dietary needs of every citizen?
Curmudgeonly Writer: Uh, Alfred (*tap*tap*tap*)....b-z-z-z-z-z-z! Wron-g-g-g-g-g-g!
Begging the question does not mean "suggest the question". When Herbert said what he said, Alfred decided to demonstrate his highbrow literacy, and, instead, earned himself the dunce cap for the day.
No, begging the question is a form of faulty logic in an argument. When you reach a conclusion that is based on premises that presume the conclusion is true, you've begged the question. One of the most widely used examples of begging the question is the "Master Designer" argument for the existence of God (please, theists, no rotten tomatoes--I'm just talking logic here, not theology).
The "Master Designer" argument goes like this: (1) The universe is an orderly place. For example, the earth is just close enough to the sun to warm our planet and enable life forms to exist, yet not too close to burn us up. Some animals eat plants, other animals eat animals, and it all eventually goes back into the ground as plant food. (2) Nothing so orderly is imaginable without the existence of a creator, which we call God. (3) Therefore, God must exist.
So we have two premises (statements #1 and #2) and one conclusion (statement #3). But take a look at #2. It's already assumed the existence of God, right? So it's not a premise, it's a conclusion, right? Right. That's called begging the question, also known as circular reasoning.
Now let's go back to Herbert. There's nothing wrong with arguing in favor of using government resources (i.e., tax dollars) to provide for needy children. In fact, doing so will probably get my vote, because, curmudgeonly or not, I'm a card-carrying Bleeding Heart Liberal. But if Herbert had said: (1) There are children who go through the schoolday without a nourishing meal at lunch; (2) one of the roles of government is to help children whose families are too poor (or stupid, or lazy) to give their kids a proper diet; therefore, (3) we must install government programs that fund hot meals in every school in the country, then Herbert just begged the gol-darned question, because #2 assumes that government programs that fund hot meal programs (#3) is one of the roles of government (#2). Which is sort of what Alfred was getting at, albeit half-assedly.
Recognizing question-begging may help you the next time an elected official says something that sounds right, yet leaves you scratching your head, wondering, "what the hell did I just miss?"
By the way, the premise-premise-conclusion method of logical argument, when correctly done, is called a syllogism, not to be confused with the psylocybin that Alfred took.
posted by Pryor at
9:31 PM
