History Main / BeggingTheQuestion

15th Oct '17 11:57:30 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


"Begging the question" is often used to mean "leading inevitably to the question" (similar to how something can be said to "invite criticism" or someone can be "asking for a smack") in popular media, though this usage is a common BerserkButton for academics aware of the original use noted above (it doesn't help that the academic meaning is not only horribly counter-intuitive[[note]]There's neither any question nor any begging involved[[/note]], but also a mistranslation; as stated above, the original Latin means something more like "arguing the source"). Nevertheless, to avoid confusion, this fallacy is sometimes referred to by its Latin name, ''petitio principii'' in more formal settings.

to:

"Begging the question" is often used to mean "leading inevitably to the question" (similar to how something can be said to "invite criticism" or someone can be "asking for a smack") in popular media, though this usage is a common BerserkButton for academics aware of the original use noted above (it doesn't help that the academic meaning is not only horribly counter-intuitive[[note]]There's neither any question nor any begging involved[[/note]], but also a mistranslation; as stated above, the original Latin means something more like "arguing the source"). Nevertheless, to avoid confusion, this fallacy is sometimes referred to by its Latin name, ''petitio principii'' principii'', in more formal settings.
3rd Aug '17 12:32:18 PM xcountryguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


---

to:

-------
3rd Aug '17 12:31:45 PM xcountryguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


"Proving" that something is true by taking your conclusion as one of your premises, usually done implicitly rather than explicitly. Few people are fooled by [[ShapedLikeItself having your conclusion as your only premise]], as in "Joe is mad at Jill, therefore Joe is mad at Jill.". Such arguments are called ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29 tautologies]]'' and are valid, and they're sound if the premises are true, but they're utterly meaningless. Put broadly, this fallacy applies to any argument where one or more premises are at least as contentious as the conclusion itself, and for the same reasons, such as:

to:

"Proving" that something is true by taking your conclusion as one of your premises, usually done implicitly rather than explicitly. Few people are fooled by [[ShapedLikeItself having your conclusion as your only premise]], as in "Joe is mad at Jill, therefore Joe is mad at Jill.". " Such arguments are called ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29 tautologies]]'' and are valid, and they're sound if the premises are true, but they're utterly meaningless. Put broadly, this fallacy applies to any argument where one or more premises are at least as contentious as the conclusion itself, and for the same reasons, such as:



* In ''VisualNovel/UminekoWhenTheyCry'', accepting the red text as only speaking the truth requires you believe both that Beatrice is being honest and that the red text speaks only the truth when statements like "The red text speaks only the truth!" come up. [[spoiler: Well, at least that's the case until we see Battler attempt to use the red to say something that turns out to be untrue.]] That said, it does happen to be true: Anything said in red is at worst misleading.

to:

* In ''VisualNovel/UminekoWhenTheyCry'', accepting the red text as only speaking the truth requires you believe both that Beatrice is being honest and that the red text speaks only the truth when statements like "The red text speaks only the truth!" come up. [[spoiler: Well, [[spoiler:Well, at least that's the case until we see Battler attempt to use the red to say something that turns out to be untrue.]] That said, it does happen to be true: Anything said in red is at worst misleading.



* In the days of Website/{{Usenet}}, in a football forum, one poster postulated that you need a great coach to win a Super Bowl. He then defined a "great coach" as one who had won a Super Bowl.

to:

* In the days of Website/{{Usenet}}, in a football forum, one poster postulated that you need a great coach to win a Super Bowl. He then defined a "great coach" as one who had won a Super Bowl.Bowl.

---
3rd Aug '17 12:26:57 PM Madrugada
Is there an issue? Send a Message


"Proving" that something is true by taking your conclusion as one of your premises, usually done implicitly rather than explicitly. Few people are fooled by [[ShapedLikeItself having your conclusion as your only premise]], as in "Joe is mad at Jill, therefore Joe is mad at Jill.". Such arguments are called ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29 tautologies]]'' and are valid, and sound if the premises are true, but utterly meaningless. Put broadly, this fallacy applies to any argument where one or more premises are at least as contentious as the conclusion itself, and for the same reasons, such as:

to:

"Proving" that something is true by taking your conclusion as one of your premises, usually done implicitly rather than explicitly. Few people are fooled by [[ShapedLikeItself having your conclusion as your only premise]], as in "Joe is mad at Jill, therefore Joe is mad at Jill.". Such arguments are called ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29 tautologies]]'' and are valid, and they're sound if the premises are true, but they're utterly meaningless. Put broadly, this fallacy applies to any argument where one or more premises are at least as contentious as the conclusion itself, and for the same reasons, such as:
23rd Apr '17 5:38:26 AM DaibhidC
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The [[RealLife Roundworld]] inspiration for this is mentioned in ''Discworld/TheScienceOfDiscworld'': Eratosthenes proved the circumference of the Earth was 252,000 stadia. This is very accurate, assuming you use the right kind of stadium (there were several different measurements of that name). How do we know which one he used? Well, if the circumference of the Earth is 252,000 stadia, then...


to:

** The [[RealLife Roundworld]] inspiration for this is mentioned in ''Discworld/TheScienceOfDiscworld'': Eratosthenes proved the circumference of the Earth was 252,000 stadia. This is very accurate, assuming you use the right kind of stadium (there were several different measurements of that name). How do we know which one he used? Well, if nowadays we ''do'' know the circumference of the Earth is Earth. So if that's 252,000 stadia, then...

23rd Apr '17 5:37:26 AM DaibhidC
Is there an issue? Send a Message




to:

\n** The [[RealLife Roundworld]] inspiration for this is mentioned in ''Discworld/TheScienceOfDiscworld'': Eratosthenes proved the circumference of the Earth was 252,000 stadia. This is very accurate, assuming you use the right kind of stadium (there were several different measurements of that name). How do we know which one he used? Well, if the circumference of the Earth is 252,000 stadia, then...

23rd Apr '17 5:30:30 AM DaibhidC
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[/folder]]

to:

[[/folder]]

23rd Apr '17 5:30:17 AM DaibhidC
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

[[AC: Literature]]
* The ''Literature/{{Discworld}} Companion'' entry for the Ephebian philosopher Expletius says that while he proved the Disc was 10,000 miles in diameter, ''all'' philosophers had their own "proof" of the Disc's size giving wildly different numbers, but "they turned out to be wrong". With ''how'' it "turned out" they were wrong carefully elided, the suggestion is we're taking the ''actual'' diameter of the Disc as established, and judging the proofs based on that.
[[/folder]]
18th Apr '17 4:39:28 PM TheBigBopper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* A classic Bill Mauldin political cartoon from the early 1960s features an American soldier standing in a field of large cartoon mushrooms, a shout-out to the conical hats worn by Asian field workers and guerrillas, explaining to a comrade the challenge of ground combat in Vietnam: "You got your mushrooms and your toadstools. The mushrooms are harmless, the toadstools will kill you. You'll know it's a toadstool if it kills you."[[note]]A botanist would call shenanigans on this, pointing out that there are no toadstools, there are only poisonous (and harmless) mushrooms.[[/note]]

to:

* A classic Bill Mauldin political cartoon from the early 1960s features an American soldier standing in a field of large cartoon mushrooms, a shout-out reference to the conical hats worn by Asian field workers and guerrillas, explaining to a comrade the challenge of ground combat in Vietnam: "You got your mushrooms and your toadstools. The mushrooms are harmless, the toadstools will kill you. You'll know it's a toadstool if it kills you."[[note]]A botanist would call shenanigans on this, pointing out that there are no toadstools, there are only poisonous (and harmless) mushrooms.[[/note]]
15th Apr '17 9:56:55 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message
This list shows the last 10 events of 78. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.BeggingTheQuestion