The Write Way

15 June 2007

Beggars Can't Be Choosers ...

Greetings,

Mea culpa! Mea culpa!

There! I've admitted my guilt ... 

Yes, last week I committed what Gillian identified as the "heinous error" you see reproduced below in all its horror: 

"Oxymoron of the week: I'm sure you've come across this notice at some time in your reading: "This page intentionally left blank"

"Which begs the question: Why?"

As Gillian, Jim and a number of other eagle-eyed members of our Merry Band spotted, this expression doesn't mean what we non-logicians often think it means ...

It doesn't "refer to a situation that cries out for an answer" (as Jim pointed out). In fact, as Gillian wrote, "Begging the question occurs in an argument that improperly assumes as true the very point the speaker is trying to argue." My use of the term "doesn't beg the question at all; it raises it," Gillian wrote.

In my defence, I must point out that I did hesitate as I typed the offending words last week, but they'd arrived in my mind uninvited and weren't leaving without a fight ... plus they looked kind of "right" on the page and were playing nicely with the other words around them so I left them there and promptly forgot all about them. Until the first email arrived pointing out the problem ...

What was I to do? Head to my best mate for help, that's what. So off I went to Google to find out just what "begging the question" really means.

Righto! Ready? Then let's do some digging ... 

San José State University in Silicon Valley explains it clearly, "In the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. But that's also true for all valid deductions, where the conclusion (what you are trying to prove) is derived from the premises or assumptions. The difference is that, in circular reasoning, the conclusion is contained in a single premise or assumption, while in a deductive argument the conclusion is derived from both premises. ... The conclusion of a circular argument can be seen as just a restatement of its only premise. It's like saying, 'A is B, therefore A is B.'

"Often, however, circular reasoning is more subtle than this: it depends on an assumption not stated but assumed. Consider the famous argument of the French philosopher, René Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." Descartes has begged the question here, because when he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he think?). Yet his fallacy continues to persuade people, over three hundred years later."  (Source)

OK ... so Descartes has been fooling us all with some faulty logic, eh?

Some more examples of begging the question:

"A thorough understanding of our nation's past means people are more informed about where our nation has come from."

"... a man who has studied law to its highest degree is a brilliant lawyer, for a brilliant lawyer has studied law to its highest degree."

"He's unattractive because he's ugly."

Hmmm ... So how did we get from "circular reasoning" to "begging the question?" I can see the logic of the former term, but not the latter ... Back to Google!

"The Latin term for the fallacy is petitio principii, a translation of the Greek to en archei aiteisthai="at the beginning to assume"; but aiteisthai does literally mean 'to beg'." (Source)

And this, "The fallacy was described by Aristotle in his book on logic in about 350BC. His Greek name for it was turned into Latin as petitio principii and then into English in 1581 as beg the question. Most of our problems arise because the person who translated it made a hash of it. The Latin might better be translated as 'laying claim to the principle'." (Source) 

Aha! That makes me feel better!

"(Begging the question) ... is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption, because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a “Circular Argument” - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.

"A good argument in support of a claim will offer independent evidence or reasons to believe that claim.

"Very often, the fact that you are using the matter to be proved as part of your argument is a good deal more subtle ... It comes across rather as an attempt to evade the issue or avoid giving a straightforward answer, making the phrase mean “avoid the question”. This meaning of the phrase is common and most authorities agree it is now part of standard English." (Source) 

So these days, the term is being used to mean more than arguing in circles ...

"Many people unaware of the technical meaning of "to beg the question" in logic use it in one of two looser senses.  The first of these, "to evade the question, to duck the issue", is attested since 1860 (WDEU).  The second, "to invite the obvious question, (with an inanimate subject) to raise the question", is now the most commonly heard use of the phrase, although we have found no mention of it prior to The Oxford Guide to English Usage, 1st edition (1983), and it is not yet in most dictionaries."  (Source)

There you go ... it seems I'm not the only one to misuse this term. However, given my antipathy to some changes in usage such as the abominable "disrespect-as-a-verb," you can be sure I'll be keeping a tight rein on those words the next time they want to go where they don't belong!

And to finish off this little discussion, "begging the question" has a number of aliases, just to confuse us ... It's also known as:

Petitio Principii
Circular Argument
Circulus in Probando
Circulus in Demonstrando
Vicious Circle

Since René has already put in an appearance this week, let's catch up with him again ...

Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.

This little story (which appears on just about every philosophy site on the Internet!) highlights the importance of logic, clear thinking and careful expression ...

A philosopher falls asleep and dreams. In his dream, one by one, the greatest philosophers of all time stand before him and systematically state their views and arguments: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Descartes, etc. But in each case the philosopher, dramatically pointing his finger at the presenter, was able to come up with a devastating objection that left the presenting philosopher speechless and unable to effectively reply.  

In fact, the philosopher realised it was the same objection in every case - he had found the perfect philosophical move to make in conferences and colloquia. He forced himself to wake up and write the objection down on a convenient slip of paper, then he drifted dreamily back to sleep with a smile on his face.  When he awoke the next morning he read the words he'd written ... "That's what you say!"

As well as pointing out the problem with Petitio Principii, Jim also explained why pages are "intentionally left blank." It's "to serve as a place holder for future additions, or as an artifact of the particular printing scheme/layout used, and is added simply to indicate to the reader that no information is missing."

Yes, that makes sense ... now.

This week's quiz:

Match up these philosophical terms with their meanings:

aesthetics, determinism, antinomy, meme, apodeictic, eudaemonism, dialectic, metaphysics, existentialism, materialism

1. system of ethics which defines and enforces moral obligation by its relation to happiness or personal well-being; approach to ethics that aims at the achievement of a good life; concerned with satisfying the objective conditions of happiness rather than with pursuing the subjective experience of pleasure

2. the characteristic feature of any proposition that states what is necessary (or impossible), perfectly certain (or inconceivable), or demonstrably true (or false); of a proposition that it's necessarily true or logically certain

3. branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such; concerned with the existence and nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time, causality, unity, identity and the world; the philosophical study of being and knowing 

4. the branch of philosophy dealing with beauty and taste 

5. a 20th-century philosophical movement; assumes that people are entirely free and thus responsible for what they make of themselves; emphasises the primacy of individual existence over any presumed natural essence for human beings; belief that the fact of existence as a human being entails both unqualified freedom to make of yourself whatever you will and the awesome responsibility of employing that freedom appropriately, without being driven by anxiety toward escaping into the self-deception of any conventional set of rules for behaviour, even though the entire project may turn out to be absurd 

6. belief that, since each momentary state of the world entails all of its future states, it must be possible (in principle) to offer a causal explanation for everything that happens. When applied to human behavior, this belief is sometimes supposed to be incompatible with the freedom required for moral responsibility. The most extreme variety is fatalism 

7. a contradiction between two statements that seem equally reasonable 

8. self-replicating unit of cultural meaning, as understood by biologist Richard Dawkins; transmitted socially among individuals of different generations, these units evolve through processes of mutation and natural selection. (Thus, for example, the jingles sung by children while skipping rope, the conventional standards for fashionable dress, and the notions comprising the "common-sense" view of the world are all passed on through time, gradually modifying without any deliberate guidance). Read more about these fascinating theories. 

9. belief that only physical things truly exist; claim (or promise) to explain every apparent instance of a mental phenomenon as a feature of some physical object; philosophical theory that matter is the only reality 

10. any formal system of reasoning that arrives at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments; a contradiction of ideas that serves as the determining factor in their interaction 

Q: How many philosophers does it take to replace a light bulb?

A: Three. One to change it, and two to argue over whether or not the light bulb really exists.

Last week's quiz:

Try matching up these words with their meanings:

pusillanimous, sinecure, ennui, animadversion, encomium, quiddity, exigency, fractious, quondam, defenestrate

1. having been formerly; former; sometime; person dismissed or ejected from a position - QUONDAM

2. a formal expression of praise - ENCOMIUM

3. stubbornly resistant to authority or control; unpredictably difficult in operation; likely to be troublesome - FRACTIOUS

4. the essence or nature of a thing - QUIDDITY    

5. lacking in courage and manly strength and resolution; contemptibly fearful; cowardly - PUSILLANIMOUS

6. an office or position that involves little work or responsibility - SINECURE

7. to throw out of a window - DEFENSTRATE

8. harsh criticism or disapproval - ANIMADVERSION

9. a pressing or urgent situation; a sudden unforeseen crisis (usually involving danger) that requires immediate action - EXIGENCY

10. a feeling of weariness and dissatisfaction arising from lack of interest; boredom; the feeling of being bored by something tedious - ENNUI

A Little Something Extra

When I was teaching, there were always certain elements about a novel that were vital; elements that students had to understand and appreciate if they were to know what the novelist was trying to tell them, and these elements were character, plot and setting.

All three are also important to our understanding and enjoyment when reading, so here are some thoughts on using setting as a character ...

“Everything happens somewhere”
-- Pieter Haag

"Where does your book take place?

"Of course, on one level, it takes place in the hearts, minds, and imaginations of your characters. On another level, it might take place in Omaha. Or Venus.

"Nicolson Baker once set an entire novel (I think) on an office-building escalator. All the action in one of Don DeLillo's novels takes place in the back seat of a limousine going cross-town in New York, a journey that (as I know from personal experience) can seem to take a lifetime. A writer like Robert Ludlum might take you to twenty locations in eighteen pages.

"Setting is, of course, the physical universe in which your story is set. But I'd suggest that it's much more than that. It's a reflection of the characters. It acts on the characters. It provides an almost inexhaustible source of details that can help you tell your story more vividly or give you an entirely new set of ideas. In a sense, it's a character in itself. And, generally speaking, books in which the setting is skillfully presented are better books because of it."

Read Timothy Hallinan's suggestions about how you can improve the use of setting.  

Word of the week: Pignus (n) This quaint little word has nothing to do with our porcine friends; it actually refers to property held as security for a debt or the contract containing such a pledge

Oxymoron of the week: logical thinking

And this week's Latin phrase explains why philosophers have such fun ...

Mundus vult decipi 

[MOON-doos WOOLT day-KEE-pee

(The world wants to be deceived)