Fallacies: Begging the Question (narrow sense)

[@PaleMist]

Another way to word the definition of "begging the question", "circular logic", aka "circular reasoning": the use of logic or reason in which a premise is equivalent to or dependent upon the conclusion. FYI there are some cases of circular logic that are completely fair and must be used at all times when a person is thinking (and by "thinking" I mean any reason processing, not exclusively practical reasoning).

[@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689]

Great explanation(asserting the same thing in the premise & conclusion)

[@tamlynn786]

Thank you! This is the best explanation of Begging the Question fallacy that I've seen on KZbin!

[@misterkite9]

I've watched several of your videos on logic fallacy. Well done instruction. But, I've noticed that whenever you give an example of the fallacy in words, it is the conservative, religious, pro life, creationist, etc. side that is committing the fallacy and the liberal, atheist, pro choice, evolutionist, etc. side that has the sound argument. Do these educational videos have a second political purpose?

[@RonnieD1970]

These are very popular argumanats. Why not also use them as examples?

[@rickstark85]

@@RonnieD1970 because it clearly promotes an agenda, and he could easily choose one of the many circular arguments made by leftist/atheist/pro life defenders. I'll shoot from the hip. "Abortion is okay, because a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body." And yet the argument isn't about what she does with her own body. It's about the body inside her body. Regardless, all reasoning is circular. All of it. There's no getting around it. Therefore, not all circular reasoning should be considered invalid.

[@rickstark85]

@Cool Breeze well, yeah, a body is a bunch of cells 🤷‍♂️ ...and when those cells are human, it's a human body. 🤔

[@syanshih1268]

@@rickstark85 fallacy of composition

[@rickstark85]

@@syanshih1268 it's actually still circular reasoning, as well...but yes, that too.

[@AIBaron10K]

Love your videos... Isn't the Yaris model made by Toyota?

[@lifelearner45lloyd97]

Dude 😀

[@lifelearner45lloyd97]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@TheWhitestar1207]

Red herring bro...

[@genesisbustamante-durian]

This video is GOLD.

[@Javaman92]

I don't see how your last example is one of circular reasoning. 1. Murder is wrong 2. assumed premise: abortion is murder Conclusion: abortion is wrong. Seems while the assumed premise can be challenged it is a valid logical structure. What am I missing?

[@MaulScarreign]

+Javaman92 It's valid but not sound because one of its premises are questionable.

[@ifhesamanandshesamanimhugh2252]

+Andrew Tessler They are subjective not questionable

[@hazween23]

@@ifhesamanandshesamanimhugh2252 a legal concept or definition should (by definition) not be subjective. Questionable, yes.

[@hazween23]

Cool Breeze as per legal concept, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being without justification or excuse. That is a very strict definition, not subjective. Questionable because legally, abortion per se is allowed up to the 24th week or beyond (full term is 36) in some states. So as a legal concept, abortion therefore does not qualify as murder (except obviously where abortion is illegal). From a moral standpoint, that’s when it becomes questionable. I personally don’t agree with that law btw.

[@KaosEspada]

i understand how "murder is morally wrong. this being the case, then abortion must also be morally wrong" is making the assumption that abortion is murder but i dont understand is how the 2nd premise in your restatement makes the argument question begging? if someone doesnt initailly believe premise 2 then justification for that premise would be given to persuade others of the truth of the premise. i dont see how a premise has to be believed by both parties for it to be non question begging?

[@Syllogist]

But what about this approach? 1) Расчёт силлогизмов модусов ААА, AAI (All-All…) /РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ - 1 / Сalculation of syllogisms of modes AAA, AAI (All-All...) / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC - 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hH6nnaKanL-MnMU 2) 09-02. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-2 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes АIх, AOx, IAx, OAx... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b17EiICceK6aoZY 3) 09-03. Расчёт силлогизмов модусов AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE… / РАЗГАДКА «Бермyдских треугoльников» ЛОГИКИ-3 / Calculation of syllogisms of modes AEE, EАE, EAO, EEE... / SOLVING THE "Bermuda Triangles" OF LOGIC-3: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2GQZWSphtykoLs

[@minhazparvez8516]

Simply the best

[@sinthalis]

You're giving a very good example of begging the question with that statement. I doubt you're doing that to instruct, however.

[@lifelearner45lloyd97]

Great - objective should be to show how to identify this particular fallacy. Good!

[@svetlinburgudzhiev2235]

Thank you very much!! 😊

[@paidapps733]

"begging the question" is said here to be "calling out a logical falicy" . Which begs the question, is that truly what begging the question is?

[@Sisyphus40]

I take issue with your example at 4:30. What you have identified is an enthymeme. There is nothing particularly circular about an enthymeme particularly when the assumed premise is so obviously assented to that the premise does not need stating. Such an assumption depends on jurisdiction and cultural habits of the people involved. If someone rejects the conclusion they may very well accept the hidden premise and reject the explicit premise. In other words there are cases in which murder is not morally wrong. For example killing baby Hitler. In any case, there is an obvious hidden premise and it is that hidden premise that means it isn't an example of begging the question.

[@MinePurpose]

I’m just gonna use the term circular reasoning cuz arguing is hard enough without having to explain this shit to people.

[@ifhesamanandshesamanimhugh2252]

Is begging the question the same as a presupposition?

[@verifiedufos2730]

isn't the abortion one a reasoning by analogy?

[@timrussell1768]

I, too, enjoy your videos. I only wish that fewer of your examples were based on religious controversies because many of my students are religious. Otherwise, I would share these with them as examples of logical fallacies. Such controversies, unfortunately, shut the door to rational discourse.

[@RonnieD1970]

All the more reason to use theses examples. What a great way to make a critical thinking class, philosophy class or any class simniliar that teaches to critically think and challenge the believes of others then with examples that challenges the students own beliefs!!

[@pseudothinker3461]

All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Is this begging the question too?

[@euclidselements9522]

No because it's proven that Humans are mortal. Begging the question begins with a premise that is yet to be proven. In your case the premise IS proven and we are trying to prove a NEW statement (good question tho)

[@TheaDragonSpirit]

Are you not saying the same thing in the common use and in logic. By someone being circular doesn't that mean it makes you beg the question or inspire the question on whether or not what they say could be true? Even if the way they say it isn't logical? For example if I say that something is true because I said it is true? Isn't that inspiring the question as to why they think it is true? Or if there is any truth to their argument. And in this isn't this similar to the common meaning?

[@paidapps733]

Excellent point. It's true because I say so. Which begs the question, is it?

[@TheaDragonSpirit]

@@paidapps733 Yea, I think I mean that if they use bad logic that is circular it makes you ask if what they meant could be true on some level, even if they themselves provide no evidence. Which leads one to go look in to it, or try to understand their position. But I get that in logic begging the question usually means the person is making a claim that has no real reasoning behind it. It's more like a statement then an argument.

[@CaptVelocity]

That's generally how it works out. And there's no such thing as "evolutionist".

[@mubarikkedir-we3hx]

Like

[@TheaDragonSpirit]

It doesn't matter. As long as the logic is true. You can use this logic to argue the fallacies in others arguments. All this shows is his own political position in a sense. Or possible he doesn't want to seem bias and is giving the other side of the story.

[@stevenspiker1021]

I think you have begged the question when you say that there is nothing wrong with using "beg the question" to mean "raise the question." I think your second premise rates low on the plausibility scale. 1. People commonly use "beg the question" to mean "raise the question." 2. If something is commonly used, that makes it all right. Conclusion: Therefore there is nothing wrong with using the term "beg the question" to mean raise the question.

[@waukivorycopse2402]

It is commonly used, that is true. It's commonly used by half-smart,idea-free middle management goons everywhere. My stars, have you ever had to sit through a lecture by these drivel spouting thickheads? They make Ricky from Trailer Park Boys sound like Bertrand Russell.

[@EaglePlaneAnchor]

100% of arguments where spherical and or rotating earth is the conclusion will beg the question.

[@rickstark85]

Lol

[@EaglePlaneAnchor]

@@rickstark85 true story. They are all so affirming the consequent formal logical fallacies. Every single one of them.

[@rickstark85]

@@EaglePlaneAnchor you're an idiot

[@noyb154]

Abortion is defined as murder, so that example is pretty stupid. You may want to define abortion another way, but murder is killing is abortion according to a large percentage of this human population. This, kids, is how propaganda works. Wrap a bunch of academic sounding terms around some politically motivated conclusions or presuppositions and tall it "teaching".

[@RonnieD1970]

I just looked at several sources for the definition of abortion via google. (Webster`'s, etc etc) None us the word murder. "Deliberate termination " and "ending pregnancy" were the dominant descriptions.

[@YTTraveler777]

RonnieD1970 ok, appeal to pc definitions is a solid argument? Murder and abortion can be correlated so easily. The dictionary isn't the be all and end all for meaning. The dictionary isn't infallible. The dictionary has many incomplete lists of synonyms. The definitions you offered are synonyms to murder.

[@Hirsutecyclist]

I believe that the problem is that "murder" is a legal term. A more biological term "killing" would obviously make the statement logical. Killing humans is morally wrong > Infants are humans > Killing infants is wrong. Then the terms in the syllogism are the same. The problem with synonyms is that they are similar, but not identical, thus in formal reasoning, synonyms are not interchangeable. I.e. formal reasoning takes into account the semantics of language in a literal sense. Synonyms make sense to people due to linguistic pragmatics.

[@servantoftheexpander9688]

You committed the fallacy of Appeal to majority when you said Abortion is murder because large percentage of human population say it's murder which is a fallacy. I do affirm that abortion is murder but the reasoning you gave contains a fallacy.