Begging the Question
I just finished reading a humorous article by Eric Feezell about the oft misused phrase, “begging the question.” I’m told that I may have, at least on occasion, misapplied it myself, although I am prepared to offer my best circular reasoning to the contrary.
In the article, Feezell postulates that the term “begs the question” has essentially been bastardized, whereby laymen (e.g., us) have misconstrued or broadened its meaning, and in the process have pissed off a very small group of anal-retentive, scholarly types (e.g., them). So when you use the phrase, like most other people, you use it to mean something like, “Well, that opens up another can of worms.” For example: Your 16-year-old son gets in a fight with a bouncer at a strip club. Sure, it’s bad enough he’s rumbling with bouncers—and you are probably in need of some parenting books—but you might say the whole situation begs the question: How did he, being underage, get into the strip club in the first place? And did he at least get a lap dance before he was thrown out? (Let’s hope so.)
But that, writes Feezell, would be the incorrect use of “begging the question.” In a nutshell, “begging the question” refers to a 
certain fallacy in syllogistic argument where the very thing you are trying to prove (your conclusion) is presupposed in the supporting argument (your premises). This is sometimes called “circular reasoning.”
Structurally, it would look something like this:
- x implies y
- Assume x
- Therefore, y
Feezell explains, with tongue in cheek, linear, circular, triangular and other more complex variations of argumentative logic such as inductive argument and, of course, Popeye-Cartesian proof of existence (I think what I think, therefore I yam what I yam.)
I found his explanations entertaining and informative. If you enjoy word play, give the article a read because, as you know, smart people read, people read this blog, so reading this blog makes you smart. Right?
Doug
9 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (9)
Pretty funny article, even though it is about logic and language skills, never my best subjects in school. But if you have to, this is the way to read it. If I had had this kind of presentation when I was in school, I am sure I would have enjoyed it a lot more.
Fantastic article! But it begs the question...
Fantastic article! But it begs the question...
Fantastic article! But it begs the question...
(My version of circular logic.)
I didn't get the picture until the very end, thought maybe you were on the sauce or something. Really a reach, don't you think? But you is what you is, and you is what you is.
Here are some other good examples of "begging the question" from www.nizkor.org:
Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
My but you are becoming "deep". In a good way. :-)
Very educational site and funny too!!
My wife does that to me all the time. I get so confused, I can't even support whatever I was arguing for. I HATE that, but she does it so smoothly, I don't realize I have been tied in a knot until I am there! I don't remember that skill being taught when I was in school. Or maybe I just wasn't smart enough to see its potential. What a great skill!
All well and good, but perhaps it would be helpful to add what "BTQ" is not. To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."
Too many linquists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, but it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage.
I agree. The concept, however, can be confusing. I found some more examples here that for me helped clarify:
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Begging_the_Question.html