Intellectual Footprint OT, Part 2: The Expression, "Begs the Question"

[RutgersRaRa]

For the next installment of Intellectual Footprint OT, since we've already covered cross-pond grammar-related issues, we'll switch it up and go to math. I already know what it's gonna be, but have to wait to build the suspense. And also because I want a freer weekend. Full stop.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Ole, based on your reasoning which is logical, doesn't it just make the statement speculative vs. begging the question.

If my understanding is correct both sides of the statement would have to be correct for "begging the question.".

"Water seeks its own level because it is a fluid" strikes me as the more accurate example.

That is a good point. I've always thought of it as any statement that states a premise and a conclusion without joining the 2, therefor begging the question, how is the conclusion drawn from the premise.

Rutgers isnt the best team, because it doesnt win many games begs the question, "Does the best team win many games?"
Water seeks its own level because it is a fluid begs the question, "do fluids always seek their own level?"

This explanation differs from RaRa's reasoning in the OP in the Rutgers example. Thoughts RaRa?

 

[Metropolitans3]

The bolded part in your post is why it is begging the question--in your assertion, the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion and therefore offers little support for its veracity. I'll give another example to try to elucidate how it works:

Water seeks its own level because it is a fluid.​

As "reasonable" as this sounds, it begs the question because the premise (water is a fluid) assumes the conclusion (water seeks its own level). A fluid generally has the properties of a compound that will seek its own level over time (chemists, don't slam me for this--glass was just de-classified as a liquid and is now either a solid or something else). So the conclusion hasn't been adequately supported with unique premises, premises that are almost completely independent of the conclusion and/or lead directly to its veracity.

I think that if you can make a statement into a circular argument by swapping the premise and conclusion, question begging is likely to be involved. In the Rutgers example, the circularity of which I refer would look like this:

Example 1
Q. Why isn't Rutgers the best team in the B1G?
A. Because they don't win many games.

or,
Example 2
Q. Why doesn't Rutgers win many games?
A. Because they aren't the best team in the B1G.

This sort of breakdown is an indication (at least to me) that begging the question is involved, inasmuch as one is linking a conclusion to a premise that is essentially the same statement as the conclusion, and therefore offers no support for it. There are a lot of fallacies and rules that go into breaking down arguments, and it can be tortuous (as many or all worthwhile fields of study are), but question begging becomes more obvious when you hear somebody make a statement for which the premise assumes some or all of the content of the conclusion. All that said, I think there is a better example than my Rutgers/B1G example, but I'm rusty after all these years. And rest assured that if a guy like Skillet initially thought it wasn't a good example, but then nuanced his way through it to see that it works, I could've come up with a better example. He is capable of hairsplitting with the best of them, and equally adept at explaining his breakdowns, but most folks aren't in his league. Maybe someone else in here can answer your question if my answer is either unsatisfactory, wrong, or both.

So is it strictly the difference between causation and correlation? "Begs the question" is when two things are correlated but instead the speaker implies causation? Since they are merely correlated, they can be swapped and create the circular reference.

At first I thought this would be a "chicken or egg" scenario, where you would ask, "what came first?" Rutgers not being the best team in the B1G or Rutgers not winning many games. However, that doesn't answer why and the answer should apply to both. But there is no answer to the question of why for the "chicken or egg". (Where does that period go?)

 

[RutgersRaRa]

That is a good point. I've always thought of it as any statement that states a premise and a conclusion without joining the 2, therefor begging the question, how is the conclusion drawn from the premise.

Rutgers isnt the best team, because it doesnt win many games begs the question, "Does the best team win many games?"
Water seeks its own level because it is a fluid begs the question, "do fluids always seek their own level?"

This explanation differs from RaRa's reasoning in the OP in the Rutgers example. Thoughts RaRa?

I think yours is a more developed form of the fairly common notion of what constitutes question begging, but your initial sense is still based on the common error so has led to more "advanced" errors. Once you see the distinction you'll have little problem grasping it because your logical abilities are manifest in your assessment above. So let's see if I can clarify it for you based on your present assessment.

A conclusion does need to follow from premises, but there is a difference between the way logicians view an argument and the way most people view one. "Question begging" can be a misleading name, since it neither involves a followup question nor begging. Even when the phrase was first coined (whether in Greek or Latin I don't recall), there was some confusion about what it was referring to, but it essentially meant/implied that the premises aren't sufficiently different from the conclusion, which brought the arguer back to the initial proposition to make a better argument. Keep in mind that an argument must have two premises that make different claims, but that can be reasonably connected to the conclusion. Here's an example:

A. Jason is a swan
B. All swans can fly
----------
C. (Therefore) Jason can fly

In my example of Rutgers not being the best team in the B1G, I only offered one reason, which is that we don't win many games. It begs the question because that argument would look like this:

A. Rutgers doesn't win many games
-----------
B. (Therefore) We aren't the best team in the B1G

In this example, the conclusion isn't sufficiently supported by the premise (it basically can't be because one premise isn't enough to support a claim/conclusion), but that the premise and conclusion are similar in what they are asserting (which is why question begging is considered to be circular). As another poster previously pointed out, what if nobody in the conference won many games? Other issues arise, such as, what constitutes "many"? So the nature of the one-premise argument, as well as the similarity between the premise and conclusion, sends the person back to square one, which is that the premises must be sufficiently different from each other AND reasonably lead to the conclusion. This is also irrespective of the so-called truth of the premise or conclusion, just that based on the premises the conclusion reasonably (unavoidably?) follows.

Take the following argument:

It is really sunny out today because it is Saturday.​

This isn't begging the question because the premise and conclusion involve sufficiently different terms, and even though both the premise and conclusion are true, one doesn't follow from the other based on the argument above (other fallacies are involved with the sunny/Saturday argument, but that's a different discussion). In my initial Rutgers example, "not the best" and "don't win many games" are sufficiently close in meaning that I would have to offer more support, in the form of premises, that are sufficiently different from each other to have established my contention that Rutgers isn't the best team in the B1G. The similarity between the premise and conclusion is what also makes it circular.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

So is it strictly the difference between causation and correlation? "Begs the question" is when two things are correlated but instead the speaker implies causation? Since they are merely correlated, they can be swapped and create the circular reference.

At first I thought this would be a "chicken or egg" scenario, where you would ask, "what came first?" Rutgers not being the best team in the B1G or Rutgers not winning many games. However, that doesn't answer why and the answer should apply to both. But there is no answer to the question of why for the "chicken or egg". (Where does that period go?)

That's a really good question--definitely making me think about it. My initial reaction is that I think it has more to do with argument structure than correlation and causation, but correlation is definitely a part of it, and perhaps equally a part of what constitutes question begging. Since begging the question was part of Aristotle's development of formal logic, and IIRC a foundational part of it since it addresses the nature of premises and their contribution to constructing a valid argument (note: valid doesn't mean "true," it means the conclusion follows from the premises). So I would start with structure, which is less subjective, then look at correlation, which is probably more subjective (hence the "reasonable" standard, which carries over into law and other fields). From this we can move on to causation, which, in my estimation, is the essence of why we construct arguments in the first place.

So, based on your question, if I had to place an ordering of the cognitive processes at work (assuming I'm using the proper idea of cognition here), it would look like this, and, as everything in philosophy is, is up for debate:

1. Argument structure
2. Correlation between the premise(s) and conclusion
3. Causation

 

[RU848789]

Everybody's got their "thing". [laughing]

True dat...this is about as intellectual a contribution as I can make right now, since it's Melody Reunion day/night and I have 5 different FB conversations going on, while listening to Ed Wong on WRSU right now playing a Melody preview show. Will have to come back to this thread and nit-pick something.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

True dat...this is about as intellectual a contribution as I can make right now, since it's Melody Reunion day/night and I have 5 different FB conversations going on, while listening to Ed Wong on WRSU right now playing a Melody preview show. Will have to come back to this thread and nit-pick something.

"Nitpicking" after a Melody reunion is like "high-functioning" after an evening in Cabo.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Well if we're talking Cabo:

 

[mildone]

There's a question-beggar in every crowd.

I'm knowledge poor and intellectually bereft. So there always a chance I'd come around begging.

 

[mildone]

True dat...this is about as intellectual a contribution as I can make right now, since it's Melody Reunion day/night and I have 5 different FB conversations going on, while listening to Ed Wong on WRSU right now playing a Melody preview show. Will have to come back to this thread and nit-pick something.

Ha ha ha. Love the picture.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

At first I thought this would be a "chicken or egg" scenario, where you would ask, "what came first?" Rutgers not being the best team in the B1G or Rutgers not winning many games. However, that doesn't answer why and the answer should apply to both. But there is no answer to the question of why for the "chicken or egg". (Where does that period go?)

Inside. :-)