Discussion Main / ManyQuestionsFallacy

Shouldn't the answer to a Complex Question, assuming it isn't "yes", always be "no"?

It becomes fairly obvious if we examine the example question. As the article says, the question is actually two questions*: "Have you ever beaten your wife?" and "Do you not(!) beat your wife now?". Or, logically expressed:

(Have you ever beaten your wife?) AND NOT (Do you beat your wife now?)

If we now resolve the statement, this develops:

(FALSE) AND NOT (FALSE)

FALSE AND TRUE

FALSE

Therefore, the correct answer is "no". Now it is fallacious of the one who asked the question to assume that "Do you beat your wife now?" is true.
In fact, as long as someone has never beaten their wife (or doesn't have one), the following answers are both correct, as both contain the question "Have you ever beaten your wife?":

Have you stopped beating your wife? - No.
Are you still beating your wife? - No.

* Strictly speaking, both the questions above are once again complex questions, as both assume that the one asked actually has a wife, but that's irrelevant here.

---

TLDR:
Asking a complex question is not a fallacy, and it does have a definite answer, but the conclusion usually drawn from the answer is fallacious, it being an Existential Fallacy.

Edited by 78.53.235.51 Hide / Show Replies

Cut this:

• An excellent example occurs in this clip from the Late Show with David Letterman.
  Bill O'Reilly: Let me ask you something, and this is a serious question. Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
  Letterman proceeds to carefully explain how he used to support the Iraq war but now thinks things are going poorly.
  O'Reilly: Possible, but do you want right now—do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
  Letterman: Ahem...first of all, I don't—
  O'Reilly: It's an easy question. If you don't want the United States to win in Iraq—
  Letterman: It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful.

Because, as written, this is not an example at all, excellent or otherwise. The question O'Reilly was asking was not a complex question, except insofar as that it assumed that the United States was fighting in Iraq. Whether or not Letterman was correct at the time of the interview that the Iraq war was going badly for the United States is simply irrelevant, or at least not obviously relevant to what Letterman's preferred outcome might be. If someone were to ask you whether you wanted to the professional baseball team headquartered nearest to your residence to win the World Series this year, and you were to answer that you did not think they would in fact win, the questioner would rightly object that you had not answered the question you had been asked.

The first bulletin needs to be cleaned up because as it's stated now, there is an answer to "I always lie, and this is the truth, am I telling the truth?"

The answer is no. I am not telling the truth. I sometimes lie, and this statement is a lie would be an acceptable answer that falls under "no."

Hide / Show Replies

I removed this bit of natter/Flame Bait:

• Strictly speaking, there are three possible scenarios: US does not invade Iraq, US invades Iraq and loses, US invades Iraq and wins. A person who sincerely prefers the first scenario is not a hypocrite for preferring the third over the second once the invasion has actually taken place. Letterman might have pointed this out, if he was as "thoughtful" as all that.

And FYI, the question presupposes that there is an objective condition defined "winning" which all parties can agree on and which could possibly take place. That is why it is not an easy question: because such an objective, commonly-agreed upon definition does not exist or has not been established. Until it does exist/is established, the whole "three possibilities" stuff is total nonsense.

Edited by Korval