Filed under: Tomorrow's BPP
BPP Senior Producer Matt Martinez and Editor Trish McKinney insist that tomorrow's show will air during the twenty-four hour period after midnight tonight.
9:41 PM ET | 12-13-2007 | permalink
Thought I, as was walking down street I other day, that grammar was relativistic, a construct intended to relay information, for purpose of human communication (mortal), in organized manner. If circumstances flexible not in it social is, please state.
Your expert guest did not do a great job explaining what 'begging the question is'. She defined it correctly, but gave a confusing example.
Instead, take the example of an argument for the existence of God:
'God must exist because the bible says he exists, and the bible is necessarily true because it is the word of God.'
The begging the question fallacy is taking a premise which has not been proven '[implied] that God exists' to prove the conclusion 'that God exists'.
Jason,
Thank you for your example-- it's a good one, indeed. I had a great example, similar to yours, that I should have shared, but I changed my mind at the last minute because I misplaced the book. Here it is, from Jenna Glatzer's book, Words You Thought You Knew:
"Here's one of the most misused phrases of all time, and I vote that we ban this expression altogether, because even if you use it correctly, most people won't know what you mean. Journalists often say that something 'begs the question' when they mean that there's a question begging to be asked. A celebrity says, "I'm seriously involved with someone," and a journalist says, "Well, that just begs the question -- are you engaged?" Wrong. To "beg the question" is to offer as proof something that itself hasn't been proved; for example, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because men are better decision-makers." It may also use the original thing that needs to be proved as part (or all) of the argument: "Tall people are smarter because you have to be intelligent to be tall" is "begging the question."
Yes, I wish I'd used her example instead. I thought it was a bit confusing, and tried to make it sound easier, but made it even more confusing in the process.
The problem is that it's a logical thing, this circular reasoning, and I'm not so great at explaining such things. The thing about logic and creative-minded people like me is that the more we try to explain it, the less sense it makes.
I'm the type of person who just knows something is wrong, but finds it's not always easy to explain. I'm not the best at definitions or even giving examples-- especially on the spot on the radio, not to mention early in the morning!
Ask me about less/fewer, who/that, that/which, lay/lie, its/it's, and the correct use of apostrophes anytime...therein is my specialty. I get lost in logic. It's easier for me to edit on paper than on the air. :o)
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your example; it would have been a great one to use. I still say agree with the other experts who think "begging the question" should be banned.
Cheers!
As a logic professor, I applaud the attempts to get the reasoning right about "begging the question". Here's my two cents: PLEASE DO NOT BANISH ???begging the question???! Just take an extra moment to understand it, and I think you'll see it can be your friend.
Think of it this way. In a debate, the matter at issue is called the question. So, in a debate about whether capital punishment is wrong, say, the question would be that _capital punishment is wrong_, and debater A would have to give independent support for the view, while debater B would give independent reasons to doubt the view. The key notion here is that the support be _independent_.
Suppose A argues that, _yes, capital punishment is wrong_ for the reason that _taking a life, even the life of a guilty person, is wrong_. That support is not independent of the question on the table--in fact, it presupposes it. (It is as if A, in an act of logical desperation, has stooped so low as to beg the very question they are trying to prove--how sad and friendless.)
All examples of question-begging are circular, as you point out, but what I like about question-begging is that the name sounds like what it is--whereas circular reasoning sounds more polite, somehow. As if a person accidentally circled around and wound up where they started.
I say let's call it what it is.
A quick thought on fallacies, if anyone cares: Begging the question is considered an informal fallacy in logic (a point Luke wondered about). That is because discovering the mistake requires interpreting what is being argued in order to see if it presupposes the question on the table, and interpretations are substantive, not formal. Formal fallacies, in contrast, can be described in purely formal terms.
Take the formally valid non-fallacy:
[1] If it rains, then C carries an umbrella;
[2] it???s raining;
[3] therefore, C will carry an umbrella.
The reason that argument works is that it is impossible for premises [1] and [2] to both be true and the conclusion [3] to be false. In fact, this will obtain for any argument with the same (general) form, known among logicians by its Latin name modus ponens:
[1] if p is true, then q is true;
[2] p is true;
[3] therefore, q is true.
But now consider a look-alike fallacy:
[1] If it rains, then D carries an umbrella;
[2] D is carrying an umbrella;
[3] therefore, it???s raining.
It is possible for conclusion [3] to be false even when premises [1] and [2] are both true (suppose, for instance, that D always carries an umbrella, just in case). The argument is a fallacy, not because of the interpretation we give it--after all, we could make the same assessment of it even if we were completely ignorant about D???s umbrella habits--but because it has ???bad??? form:
[1] if p is true, then q is true;
[2] q is true;
[3] therefore, p is true.
Hence, the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent (as contrasted with the informal fallacy of begging the question).
I guess that officially takes the joy out of this thread. Sorry.--ST
Wait. If most native speakers use "begs the question" in a certain context, how can it be "wrong"? I mean, does anybody really think that appropriate language use can/should be prescribed in a way that contradicts the way we use it naturally? Or should the norms of our language be based on our intuition?
Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.
NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.
The Bryant Park Project started as a blog in the summer of 2007 and ended as a radio show and online community in July 2008. Read our frequently asked questions and discussion rules.
NEWS
MUSIC, MOVIES, TV & MORE...
JUST FUN
