- Joined
- Oct 13, 2014
- Messages
- 2,991
- Reaction score
- 2,113
"Begging the question" is fairly commonly used phrase that currently carries to distinct meanings. The formal one is detailed here (with the informal meaning discussed at the end), whereas the informal meaning is usually equivalent to "raising the question".
The formal meaning has to do with circular arguments. Good logical arguments usually follow a linear pattern: if A then B therefore C, with C being the desired conclusion. Circular arguments are usually arguments where the conclusion is assumed as true in the very proof used to demonstrate the truthfullness of the argument: i.e in order for your argument to prove C, it must assume C as true before having proved it to be true, which doesn't make much sense.
However, more and more the informal meaning is the one we commonly use. I'm against this, but I'm also against the formal meaning.
My reason for this is that when you chop the phrase up word by word, it really doesn't make much sense. We "beg for (definite article) [noun]", not just "beg (definite article) [noun]". While phrases don't have to follow the regular rules for syntax, it's much more convenient that they do.
If we don't try to enforce that, we end up with this class of sentences where regular rules are suspended, which I think needlessly complicates things in an already relatively complex language.
So, what is the solution? I say we just smash "begging the question" into smithereens and consign it to oblivion, while of course replacing it. And, since the phrase carries two distinct meanings in different contexts, it would be useful to replace it with two distinct phrases.
My suggestions are fairly unspectacular: "Circular reasoning" for the formal meaning and "raises the question" for the informal one.
If we do that, then "But that's begging the question" becomes "But that's circular reasoning" (formal variant), and "But that begs the question" becomes "But that raises the question" (informal variant), which I think seems reasonable.
So, what do you think?
The formal meaning has to do with circular arguments. Good logical arguments usually follow a linear pattern: if A then B therefore C, with C being the desired conclusion. Circular arguments are usually arguments where the conclusion is assumed as true in the very proof used to demonstrate the truthfullness of the argument: i.e in order for your argument to prove C, it must assume C as true before having proved it to be true, which doesn't make much sense.
However, more and more the informal meaning is the one we commonly use. I'm against this, but I'm also against the formal meaning.
My reason for this is that when you chop the phrase up word by word, it really doesn't make much sense. We "beg for (definite article) [noun]", not just "beg (definite article) [noun]". While phrases don't have to follow the regular rules for syntax, it's much more convenient that they do.
If we don't try to enforce that, we end up with this class of sentences where regular rules are suspended, which I think needlessly complicates things in an already relatively complex language.
So, what is the solution? I say we just smash "begging the question" into smithereens and consign it to oblivion, while of course replacing it. And, since the phrase carries two distinct meanings in different contexts, it would be useful to replace it with two distinct phrases.
My suggestions are fairly unspectacular: "Circular reasoning" for the formal meaning and "raises the question" for the informal one.
If we do that, then "But that's begging the question" becomes "But that's circular reasoning" (formal variant), and "But that begs the question" becomes "But that raises the question" (informal variant), which I think seems reasonable.
So, what do you think?
