SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
aristarchus (2645)
Journal of aristarchus (2645)
Choosing the rubric "Nexuses", since I have no idea what it is. But here we are talking about, "Begging the Question".
This has come up several times here on SoylentNews. And several times I have called out those using the phrase incorrectly. Since they were "conservatives", they also were "relativists" who believe that nothing is wright or Wrong, but that thinking makes it so. (Scholary Note: this quote actually occurs in Shakespeare's Hamlet (cite:Hamlet: Act 2, Scene 2), but has precedents back to King Alfred's translation of The Consolation of Philosophy, by Boethius, 4th Cent Roman.) And if it is true, then people using "begs the question" for "raises the question" is perfectly acceptable, because usage determines meaning. I am here to raise a wall of fire, or, a firewall, against this sort of nonsense, palavered by idiots and ne'erdowells, Knaves and poltroons, textbook publishers and NPR reporters, and just say, NO, you are holding it wrong.
As many, many websites explain, "begging the question" in fact does not mean "begging that a question be asked", which is what current usage seems to be suggesting. But this means that the shift in meaning is not just a shift in meaning, as when "Phat" replaced "Rad" which replaced "Cool", which replaced "Groovy". Yes, words and phrases can shift in the milieu of a living language, no question. But, there are differences.
On the one hand, the incorrect use of "begging the question" may seem to only be a shift in signification within a language. But the argument here is that it both an insidious and deleterious change in language, or in fact, an error. There are somethings that usage cannot justify, and among those are semantic misunderstandings, like the one underlying the misuse of "begging the question". And, I might point out, the worst offenders are reporters on National Public Radio, who ought to know better, but after several Project Veritas attacks, the organization has added some Affirmative Action conservatives, who are not really all that well educated.
To begin: "begging the question" is a translation of the Latin phrase, petitio principii, which, as any literate person can see, means "petitioning the principle". This is an informal fallacy, or common incorrect reasoning, that proves something based on the assumption that thing is true, or in other words, assuming the truth of what was to be proven. An example is an argument that defends laws outlawing marijuana, because use of marijuana is in fact illegal! This is called "circular reasoning", the idea that something is true, because it is true, and it is true, because it is true, and, . . .
Now, this is what "begging the question" is, assuming the truth of what you are trying to prove, or circular reasoning. Hardly convincing, unless you are already inside that particular question begging bubble. Most Black on Black crime is committed by Blacks? Absolutely true. But when you look at it, it is true by definition, and has no bearing on whether race is a factor in criminality, which is of course what the racist cracker coming up with the argument assumed.
This is why it is important to stand up for the correct usage of "begging the question". Mistaken usage by people educated enough to have heard the phrase, but not educated enough to understand it, undercut the devastating use of the accusation of the fallacy to refute all the question beggers out there. Earth flat? Well of course it is because it has no curvature! Begging the question. Blacks in American have less wealth and education? Well they must be an inferior race. Begging the question. You see how easily hidden, or not so hidden, presumptions and biases and prejudices, for the basis for erroneous conclusions. So misusing the phrase "begging the question" incorrectly weakens the force of accusations of those who actually do, "beg the question."
We go to the source, The Philosopher, as later he was called: Aristotle.
The original phrase used by Aristotle from which begging the question descends is: τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς (or sometimes ἐν ἀρχῇ) αἰτεῖν, "asking for the initial thing." Aristotle's intended meaning is closely tied to the type of dialectical argument he discusses in his Topics, book VIII: a formalized debate in which the defending party asserts a thesis that the attacking party must attempt to refute by asking yes-or-no questions and deducing some inconsistency between the responses and the original thesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Obligatory XKCD, which totally explains the problem.
So now, the explanation. Languages can change, granted. Once, "Merde" meant "honored above all others in our village". (Look it up, it is not true.) And of course, "bad" can become "good", and "rad" can become socially comformist Millennial fodder, but I digress, which begs the question (NOT!!!) of why the change in meaning of the phrase "begs the question" is even a thing. Now, I will tell you. Pay close attention. If you are Runaway, you can runaway at this point, since rational thought is required.
Words change. Sometimes, words are purposefully, intentionally changed. Once "Christian" meant "crucified". Kind a downer when you are trying to catapult the propaganda and hype the religion. So suddenly "crucified" meant not "dead" (which was the Roman intention), but "Saved". As an American comedian in the Sixties pointed out, if Jesus had been execute in America in the Fifties, it would have been by electric chair, and all Christians would be wearing little gold electric chairs on gold chains around their necks. But really, imagine the power of taking a Roman expression of fear and subservience, and turning into a symbol of hope, equality, and liberation? Brilliant.
"Begging the question"? Not so much. Changes in language based on ignorance of language, and superficial similarities, are quite different. They are just dumb, not to put too fine a point on it. The bare similarity of "begs" to "ask" misses the entire point of the original phrase, and takes it to another place. Begging the question is not asking any question, and current usage needs to recognise this. It is simply and purely a mistake on the part of partially educated persons, often, for some reason, journalists, who have heard the phrase "begs the question", but know nothing of its actual meaning or history. So they fuck it up. Excuse me. I beg for your forgiveness?
Confusing this phrase, out of ignorance, is often compared to the modern Brit illiterate screw-up, "a wet squid". I recommend that one watch the full episode of "The IT Crowd", where a Pedal Stool, is compared to a "damp squid", but squids are already damp, so it is "damp squib", the definition of which begs the question, oh, darnit, at this point look it up for yourself!
So it is a misunderstanding of language that has given rise to this "begging the question" to mean "raises the question", and anyone who makes such a mistake should be suitably ashamed. There are many such mistakes, they are called "eggcorns", after a failed attempt to enunciate "acorn" as the nut or seed of an oak. Kinda makes sense, a nut is a seed, which is an egg, which is, ok, it is just wrong. For a long list, see The Eggcorn Database", which seems to have gone dark circa 2017. but is still full of lovely examples, such as "Death nail" for "death knell", and many, many more, all attributable to the reduction of literacy under Republican administrations since Reagan. Which begs the questions of why Republicans hate education? See what I did there?
A more insidious approach, however, is the mis-interpretation by Grammar Girl, who I am sure is well-intentioned, but is still something of a damp squid.
The Right Way to Use "Begs the Question"
Begs the question is actually a term that comes from logic, and it's used to indicate that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support (1, 2). It can be a premise that's independent from the conclusion (3) or in a simpler form, the premise can be just a restatement of the conclusion itself (4, 5).
So far, so good, but then:
For example, let's say Squiggly is trying to convince Aardvark that chocolate is healthful, and his argument is that chocolate grows on trees, so it must be healthful. Aardvark could rightly say there's no proof that something is good for you simply because it grows on a tree. Some things that grow on trees are poisonous--Chinaberry tree fruit, for example (6). So Squiggly's argument is based on a faulty premise.
Fatal error, Grammar Girl, whoever you are! It is not the premise that is at fault, it is the circularity of the argument. Whether the assumption that things that grow on trees are natural is in fact true or not has nothing to do with the fallaciousness of the reasoning, it is the thinking that the assumption is sufficient that is the original petitio principii that makes the reasoning fallacious.
Grammar Girl digs herself in deeper,
I remember what begs the question means by thinking that the argument raises a specific question--it begs *the* question--What's your support for that premise? OR more informally, What does that have to do with anything? You use the phrase begs the question when people are hoping you won't notice that their reasons for coming to a conclusion aren't valid. They've made an argument based on a lame assumption. The question is What's your support for that premise?
The lame assumption is the problem. It does not beg for other support for the conclusion, it is the fact that the conclusion, or some disguised rewording of the conclusion, is being offered as support for itself. Which, by the way, is totally valid. If p is true, then p is true. Such an argument cannot be invalid, because if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true. Petitio principii is not invalid; in fact, it is too valid. Premises in an argument have to be different enough so that the argument is not merely the restating of what was assumed ab initio.
So this is why T-Rex rules. He is in no doubt about the validity of his arguments, because when you beg the questions that no one dare unbeg, well:
T-Rex begs the question of whether he is a pretty sweet dude.
In conclusion, mistaking "begging the question" for "raises the question" is not a simple matter of language change or evolution. It is devolution, illiteracy, and the profligation of this mistake harms logical thinking. And, NPR needs to reign in its reporters, and fire them if them make this mistake on air again. I am looking at you, Steve Inskeep! Token conservative, which means only hired to fill a perceived quota, not because of question begging competence. So join me, Soylentils one and all, in sending offenders to Beg the Question.info, where they have cards you can print out to hand to offenders. Often times, they may not even be aware they offend, being illiterate, so be gentle, my noble Soylentils! May your squid ever be wet.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by shortscreen on Friday March 13 2020, @10:02AM
Next up: Where are we (at)? And could(n't) we care less? Will incidents of adding an extra syllable to preventive be preventative for further incidences?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 13 2020, @02:08PM (5 children)
Amusing, and informal, all in one. Does this mean that you have recovered from your malady?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 13 2020, @11:58PM (4 children)
This is the real Ari, you know. He's also done a couple of journals on moral philosophy that show off what's hiding behind that regrettable tendency to troll people...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 14 2020, @12:19AM (3 children)
The real Ari. Maybe. Or, maybe it's just one of his captive catamites?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 14 2020, @08:10AM
Back in the dry well, Runaway! Apply the lotion, or it gets the hose! Special Hose for Runaway!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 14 2020, @08:31AM (1 child)
Are they forced to wear Buggeroos brand underwear, with the fly in the rear?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 15 2020, @07:42AM
Why do you ask? Are you Bi-curious?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 13 2020, @03:04PM (6 children)
Thanks Ari for a nice diversion from this damn omni-virus-news-cycle.
Long ago I figured out that "begging the question" was widely mis-used and decided to either: say "that asks the question" or, specifically drill down into the logic being (mis)used. By not meeting the problem head on I must be a wimp (or an engineer), but at least I'm not wrong!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 13 2020, @04:54PM
This begs the question...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 13 2020, @05:05PM (4 children)
"Raises the question" works well too.
Misusing "begging the question" is a huge pet peeve of mine!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 13 2020, @09:29PM (3 children)
Try being a professional philosopher and seeing it in academic journals.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday March 13 2020, @10:05PM (2 children)
I feel your pain, fellow academic bro!
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 15 2020, @12:54AM (1 child)
You are the lamer, left wing, SN version of Carl Benjamin. Beg the Arthur Schopenhauer. [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Touché) by aristarchus on Sunday March 15 2020, @07:44AM
And you are the illiterate, unhistorical, really stupid version of Tertullian. I hope you die as he did, or at least a reasonable facsimile.
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Friday March 13 2020, @07:12PM (6 children)
Nexus Theory was removed from academic mathematics and it is currently forbidden to teach it to masses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead [wikipedia.org]
http://www.chromatika.org/spip/ [chromatika.org]
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday March 13 2020, @08:37PM (1 child)
Ah, Whitehead and the "consequential nature of God" of Process Philosophy. Begs the question, yeah? At least it is not Objectivism.
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Friday March 13 2020, @09:08PM
That paradigm is quite applicable to software.
Example: I am creator god[1] to all my programs.
However, it is the monotheism what is badly broken. At least, I do not deny the existence of other programmers and their programs.
[1] I consider writing a word 'god' with a capital first letter in midst of sentence a sin. I don't deal any punishment for that sin, though.
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 13 2020, @09:49PM (3 children)
Forbidden to teach the masses? I was helping a colleague with this kind of stuff yesterday for one of his 200s. But I suppose it is easier to get people interested in your idea if you label as some sort of forbidden or secret knowledge.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday March 13 2020, @10:00PM (2 children)
Yes, question begging esoteric conspiracy philosophy, nearly as seductive as Nietzsche for teenage boys. For the good stuff, look into Ἑρμῆς ὁ Τρισμέγιστος . We could tell you, but then . . . well, you know. Mischief managed, circle closed, question begged.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 14 2020, @04:46AM (1 child)
In all seriousness, everyone should read On the Genealogy of Morality. Understanding the various moral concepts and major systems at that level makes obvious how those among us use both types as a weapon.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday March 14 2020, @08:07AM
Agreed. But you do realize that Nietzsche was a professor of Classics, and an incel? Died of siphylis from the one sexual experience of his life. That is just so sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 13 2020, @09:03PM
Of course you are my bright little star,
I've miles
And miles
Of files
Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
And now to suit our
Great computer,
You're magnetic ink.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Saturday March 14 2020, @11:18AM (6 children)
Sorry, I don't buy that. If they don't understand the meaning of "beg the question", then there won't be "force of accusations". The ignorance field is too strong. The problem here is that "begging the question" as a label doesn't have inherent compositional meaning. By that, I mean you can't puzzle out the meaning of the phrase from meaning of the components. Whatever context that phrase had is long lost now. Instead, I think it's time to regroup and come up with a new label that makes more sense for modern times. Something like "proves something based on the assumption that thing is true", but shorter.
This journal reminds me of the hubbub over the demotion of Pluto to minor planet status. Suddenly, there were all these earnest lecturers talking about the power of science in action and whatnot. But they ignored that labeling Pluto a planet would have been just as scientifically valid. There were two reasons that usually weren't mentioned. First, somewhere a prune-faced harridan would otherwise be forcing her hapless pupils to learn 50-150 names, just because they were called planets. And second, because it was retaliation for Percival Lowell getting a planet named after him indirectly (the "PL" of Pluto).
But otherwise, labels are labels. And nothing was gained scientifically by having planets, minor planets, and exoplanets (with neither of the last two categories being planets!) versus planets being merely large enough to naturally round themselves gravitationally with the various subcategories logically following. But there's going to be at least a generation of confused students who will be calling all kinds of things planets even though they aren't. Yet.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 17 2020, @04:39AM (5 children)
Again, in bad faith, you mix up things that have no relation to each other! Khallow, my dear and fluffly khallow, do you deign to think that the opinions of mortals determine the paths of the stars? Of course, you do not. And further, my underfluffed Padewan, do you think that Truth is the result of a majority vote? Of course you do not. Therefore, from these two admissions, we can infer, that you, khallow, are arguing in bad faith, against your own convictions, since if your allowances prevailed, any expression could mean anything, which means that all of them mean nothing.
.
Khallow, my dear and fluffy, mon frere, amigo, you are not that. You, like us, seek truth. You cannot maintain a position that destroys truth just so you can maintain that your "Truth" is no more insane than the "truth" you oppose. That is, as you well know, relativism, the position that there is no truth, and that nothing is true or false, but that thinking makes it so. But I am Here to Tell you, My Dear and Fluffy khallow, this will not pass! You will not destroy truth in order to allow for your pathetic small minded egoistic Vienna Circle version of Libertariantardism. You are wrong, and you argue in bad faith, and, we all know it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 18 2020, @11:37AM (4 children)
Like what? I see you follow that with a bunch of non sequitur leading questions. So I guess mixing up things that have no relation to each other is not a big concern of yours.
You have yet to name one such "admission".
You have a means by which truth can be destroyed?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 18 2020, @06:16PM (3 children)
khallow, khallow, khallow! You are in over your head, yet again. You see, by insisting that language is infinitely plastic, you are adopting a position of semantic relativism, advocating the ungroundedness semiotics. CS Peirce would be appalled.
.
Let me try to explain this to you. Conservatives have often found themselves defending outdated, incorrect, yeah, refuted, positions, whether racism, sexism, or in your case, neo-classical capitalism. In order to defend their defense of the indefensible, they often will assert relativism, the idea that there can be more than one truth, to allow their's to be one, and then they complain that people are punching them in the face just because they "think different". Fricking Nazis! Of course, they do not for a second believe that there are "many truths", but believe that they are right and "libtards" and "SJWs" are really, really wrong. But the point is that once you go relativist, you have destroyed the notion of truth itself, and there is no way back, and you are forced to resort to force as the only alternative. Think of it as packing the Supreme Court, so you can force the overturning of Rowe v. Wade, even though you have no rational argument for doing so.
.
Maintaining that language just "changes" means you are being this conservative relativist. Yes, language does change, but the point here is that is either natural, or rad, a shift or a subversion. But "begging the question" is neither of those. It is a mistake, based on declining standards of literacy, and prevalence can never redeem that. So it remains something of a damp squid, my dear and fluffy khallow, as do you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 18 2020, @11:50PM (2 children)
I'll point to the considerable (and ongoing) evolution of English language over the past 500 years as supporting evidence for my assertion. No need to shoehorn me into some weird faction.
Nor do I advocate simply leaving useful concepts unlabeled. I think the concept covered by "begging the question" is worthy of a good label. When people continually misapply the present phrase on such a massive scale, it's no longer a good label - just in this journal, you've already wasted too much of your own time to little effect. It's time to come up with a new term rather than push the noodle.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 19 2020, @04:49AM (1 child)
Logicians, khallow, logicians. We are a peculiar and vindictive bunch. Best no to cross us on matters like this. You may wake up to a damp squid on your pillow, if you beg the questions incorrectly again. But my main point is that conservatives have destroyed the truth, in an attempt to provide some small space for their delusions. Relativism means it's OK to be a "conservative" (formerly, Republican, before that label became too Ted Cruz to accept.) And Now, Kellyanne Conway admits that she is married to an Asian, and her kids (wait, she has "kids"?) are part Asian. You see the conundrum, khallow? You are once again forced into an indefensible corner, where you have to claim that "renting out your backhoe" does not mean exactly the same thing as "chattel slavery for all dark skinned people." Or did I cross the streams with your latest racist journal? Poor, poor, pathetic, khallow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 19 2020, @11:31AM
Do I sound like I care? Wriggling as much as you'd like on that hook. We'll long get the wrong kind of begging, until some bright bulb comes up with a better label.