- comment
Politicl.Animal - body
- And historians wonder why a "Non-Aligned" movement developed during the Cold War.
- comment Mark Gardner
- body
- Good insight in the Dems. Probably similar happenings in the Redskins locker room. Sorry Shaun. :)
- comment Peter LaMarca
- body
- From Wikipedia - "In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For an example of this, consider the following argument: "Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this." Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition—in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy"—in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself."
So, for the last time, everyone: please learn the phrase "raises the question" or perhaps "causes one to wonder", and stop misusing "begs the question".
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Peter, that's nonsense.
Repeated instances accumulating into a view is a statistical function, and yes -- an appropriate use of logical deductive means.
"Begging the question" is a fallacy when offered *one* instance of a situation. It is not a fallacy when repeated instances correlate to provide a greater picture.
BONUS QUESTION: Which logical fallacy did Peter employ? (bet: Mike Hichborn guesses it right first)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- In addition, "raises the question" or "causes one to wonder" (1) would fit into the Wikiality definition of begging the question... so you're stuck with the same problem you're trying to resolve!
- comment James Atticus Bowden
- body
- Prithee explain what is the difference between a Liberal and a Progressive?
- comment Peter LaMarca
- body
- No, "begging" in the specific context of this logical fallacy is a synonym for "pleading", as in "pleading one's case". It denotes a situation where one simply restates the question and advances it as proof of their conclusion.
I wasn't saying that your post was logically flawed, just that you misused the term.
Again, from Wikipedia - "More recently, "begs the question" has been used as a synonym for "invites the question" or "raises the question", or to indicate that "the question really ought to be addressed". In this usage, "the question" is stated in the next phrase. For example: "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" This usage is often sharply criticized by proponents of the traditional meaning, but it has nonetheless come into common use as a result of its use in the media, especially by people ignorant of its original use. Argument over whether this usage should be considered incorrect is an example of the debate between linguistic prescription and description."
I didn't want to get off on this tangent, it's just one of those things that bugs me when I hear it. (As a gentle aside, I certainly would be surprised if someone who professes the primacy of an apostolic faith would be willing to accept a new definition just because of common misuse.)
However, I do agree with you that interpolation and extrapolation are valid forms of deduction or inference.
- comment Charles
- body
- I used to be prescriptive. Then a friend recommended a book to me, called "The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary".
Realising that all accepted definitions and usages are nothing more than the accumulated misuses of the previous generation, I've decided that while I'll still be a prescriptionist, I'll no longer bemoan the fact that you can now spell judgment "judgement".
Not that you will EVER catch ME doing it.
- comment Tlacolotl
- body
- From Wikipedia:
"The basic difference between progressivism and liberalism is a philosophical one regarding their ethics and their goals. Most people who call themselves progressive are simply liberals who are for whatever reason reluctant to call themselves liberal. Most of them do not know that progressive and liberal are not interchangable terms. This bothers conservatives because progressive and conservative are not opposites. [. . .] Liberalism is ultimately founded on a conception of natural rights, and the belief that the sole purpose of government and society is to protect those rights. Different schools of liberalism often disagree very strongly on the question of what exactly those natural rights actually are, but all liberals agree that their ultimate political goal is to achieve a society - and a form of government - that fully respects their preferred list of rights. Once this goal has been achieved, liberals would fight to preserve the status quo against any forces of change. [. . .] Progressivism, by contrast, is fundamentally utilitarian. Progressives judge societies and forms of government not on the basis of how close they come to any ideal of perfection, but on the basis of how well they work - how well they promote the happiness of their people."
Thus, you see progressivism in the modern conservative movement, which says, "regardless of our rights, we will do whatever is necessary to survive", which is mimicked by the DLC types progressives like Lieberman. On the liberal side, however, you have "we will die for our rights", i.e., our rights are more important than our physical security.
It's not that progressives are on the left/right scale. It is a political philosophy that applies to many different ideologies. Progressivism for a fundamentalist, for example, might mean theocracy.
The liberals that founded this country, however, seem to have had their heads on their shoulders. I'm glad, Shaun, that you come down firmly against these progressives, and it is a testement to your objectivity that you are willing to recognize that, yes, there have been and still are progressives on the Right.
9 Comments:
So, for the last time, everyone: please learn the phrase "raises the question" or perhaps "causes one to wonder", and stop misusing "begs the question".
Repeated instances accumulating into a view is a statistical function, and yes -- an appropriate use of logical deductive means.
"Begging the question" is a fallacy when offered *one* instance of a situation. It is not a fallacy when repeated instances correlate to provide a greater picture.
BONUS QUESTION: Which logical fallacy did Peter employ? (bet: Mike Hichborn guesses it right first)
I wasn't saying that your post was logically flawed, just that you misused the term.
Again, from Wikipedia - "More recently, "begs the question" has been used as a synonym for "invites the question" or "raises the question", or to indicate that "the question really ought to be addressed". In this usage, "the question" is stated in the next phrase. For example: "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" This usage is often sharply criticized by proponents of the traditional meaning, but it has nonetheless come into common use as a result of its use in the media, especially by people ignorant of its original use. Argument over whether this usage should be considered incorrect is an example of the debate between linguistic prescription and description."
I didn't want to get off on this tangent, it's just one of those things that bugs me when I hear it. (As a gentle aside, I certainly would be surprised if someone who professes the primacy of an apostolic faith would be willing to accept a new definition just because of common misuse.)
However, I do agree with you that interpolation and extrapolation are valid forms of deduction or inference.
Realising that all accepted definitions and usages are nothing more than the accumulated misuses of the previous generation, I've decided that while I'll still be a prescriptionist, I'll no longer bemoan the fact that you can now spell judgment "judgement".
Not that you will EVER catch ME doing it.
"The basic difference between progressivism and liberalism is a philosophical one regarding their ethics and their goals. Most people who call themselves progressive are simply liberals who are for whatever reason reluctant to call themselves liberal. Most of them do not know that progressive and liberal are not interchangable terms. This bothers conservatives because progressive and conservative are not opposites. [. . .] Liberalism is ultimately founded on a conception of natural rights, and the belief that the sole purpose of government and society is to protect those rights. Different schools of liberalism often disagree very strongly on the question of what exactly those natural rights actually are, but all liberals agree that their ultimate political goal is to achieve a society - and a form of government - that fully respects their preferred list of rights. Once this goal has been achieved, liberals would fight to preserve the status quo against any forces of change. [. . .] Progressivism, by contrast, is fundamentally utilitarian. Progressives judge societies and forms of government not on the basis of how close they come to any ideal of perfection, but on the basis of how well they work - how well they promote the happiness of their people."
Thus, you see progressivism in the modern conservative movement, which says, "regardless of our rights, we will do whatever is necessary to survive", which is mimicked by the DLC types progressives like Lieberman. On the liberal side, however, you have "we will die for our rights", i.e., our rights are more important than our physical security.
It's not that progressives are on the left/right scale. It is a political philosophy that applies to many different ideologies. Progressivism for a fundamentalist, for example, might mean theocracy.
The liberals that founded this country, however, seem to have had their heads on their shoulders. I'm glad, Shaun, that you come down firmly against these progressives, and it is a testement to your objectivity that you are willing to recognize that, yes, there have been and still are progressives on the Right.
Post a Comment
Home