Fallacies: Begging the Question (broad sense)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- www.criticalthinkeracademy.com
There is a narrow sense of "begging the question" that is equivalent to the charge of "circular reasoning", where a premise simply restates what is being asserted in the conclusion. But there is also a broader sense of "begging the question" that is perhaps more common and more important to understand.
This video introduces this broader conception of the fallacy of "begging the question".
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to have an actual professional doing these videos on RUclips. Before I found your channel, I just had to watch college students and layman, which were hard to follow.
You've explained this so well, I never fully understood this fallacy before now! Thank you!
great explanation. your course on udemy is one of the best courses i have ever done in my life
This helped me a lot. Thank you!
awesome explanation. i finally understand this fallacy. i do find it ironic that the phrase "begging the question" is so poorly named. i supposed this is why it's so misused (but please don't ask me to provide support for this conclusion LOL)
That's exactly what I was saying. I'm not sure from where you get "presumptuous."
I think what you mean to say "arrogant" instead of "presumptuous," which might be presumptuous of me! In any case, despite how it came off or struck you, I meant it as I said. It seems you received it as I meant it ... at least in denotation. Perhaps not connotation.
We know the horizon is Earth's curve because we know the Earth is a ball.
Love this one. It pretty much invalidates every argument William Lane Craig has ever given. In his best give scenario (the audience is just William) his arguments are only equal to the conclusion.
religious people are all like this, like atheists and darwinists as well... no proof just "evidence based claims"
No, this speaks to a simple misunderstanding of critical thinking. Just because you're not persuaded by an argument does not make it invalid by default. Even if you represent the majority of opinion. Scientists who were not persuaded by Wegner's "continental drift" theory had reason not to be persuaded. Although Wegner was ultimately right at least in theory, he had no reason as to why his particular conclusion of continental drift was true, the reasons he did provide were not substantial. It was only until the 1970s that sufficient observational evidence emerged that then later emerged into the plate tectonic theory that we know today. The anti-mobilists that opposed Wegner were never correct, nor would they have ever been persuaded by Wegner's theory at the time. Likewise too with Galilean and Darwinian theories, both had major flaws when first proposed and both faced major scientific criticism. Few people win debates with William Lane Craig, not because their arguments are not persuasive but because they are poorly constructed.
Both videos on begging the question never mentioned anything about something needing to be 100% proven, whatever that means. The common idea of both is more related to rational argumentation or how we should convince people on the truth of some claim. One fallacy is to assume that which you are trying to demonstrate to someone, as shown in the prior video. That is the more restricted form of begging the question he is giving.
The more broader fallacy he illustrates here, has to do with trying to raise someone's conviction in a claim/conclusion, by using premises that are either less plausible or equally plausible to the claim.
This needs to be taken down, and a new video needs to explain it better. I just got into a debate with someone who had no formal logic background. He watched this video, and as a result, he thought that virtually every argument committed a "begging the question" fallacy. Any argument that has a premise that isn't 100% proven, he thought was commuting a fallacy.
Even RationalWiki(dot)org misunderstands the true "begging the question fallacy" because of this video lol. This lie is spreading.
Very informative discussion, thank you. I need to disagree with your example meat eaters. I don't think that it would be implausible to believe that all animals have souls if you already believe that humans have souls, even if you are a meat eater. However, it would not necessarily follow that you would not eat meat because animals have souls. All of these animals with souls eat each other all the time as a part of the natural order. Why should you be different?
Personally, I eat meat and I like to think of myself as having a soul. No, I can't show you mine even if you could show me yours. I eat meat, I just feel guilty afterward but I'm not going to stop any time soon.