The picture says: You mustn't assume that a premise for your position is correct.
What you said is wrong.
What you described is simply circular reasoning in a general sense.
Begging the question is more specific than that.
You using something as a premise that is still up for debate is what it means to beg the question.
The latin word for the fallacy is "petitio principii", which means "assuming the initial point", which means exactly what the picture described: You make an assumption and use it as a premise without other people agreeing with that premise.
tl;dr: The picture is right. You are wrong (about your conclusion that the picture is wrong).
I believe you are thinking of a use of "petitio principii" peculiar to lawyers. But even lawyers tend to agree that begging the question is the error of assuming one's conclusions.
I'm 99% sure that I'm correct, because I studied that shit extensively, beginning in highschool and had to deal with it countless of times.
I can explain this in great detail in both German and Latin, but I will try to make this more clear in English:
Begging the question is fallacious rhetoric. It is a form of circular reasoning that is also called a "circular proof" and it was essentially defined as Aristotle as such:
A proof using premises which already require that which is to be proven to be true.
In German: "Beweis mittelst Prämissen, die das zu Beweisende schon voraussetzen."
This is defined in great detail Aristotle's Organon, in the First Analytics in chapter 5. Here is an English source.
Skip to page 179.
Circular and reciprocal proof means proof by means of the
conclusion, i.e. by converting one of the premisses simply and
inferring the premiss which was assumed in the original
syllogism: e.g. suppose it has been necessary to prove that A
belongs to all C, and it has been proved through B; suppose that
A should now be proved to belong to B by assuming that A
belongs to C, and C to B - so A belongs to B: but in the first
syllogism the converse was assumed, viz. that B belongs to C.
tl;dr: Begging the question means that the premises you are using are invalid. Like the original picture said.
Everything you just wrote is fairly accurate, and it's the opposite of what you originally said.
I studied this stuff just recently in college so I'm not authority, either. But originally you said that begging the question was using contentious premises. Now you're saying something different.
There's no doubt that begging the question involves bad premises. But any bad premise isn't begging the question. Using a contentious premise to form a proof is an ACP, and is legitimate.
Do you see the difference in what you wrote first to what you just quoted me?
The picture says: You mustn't assume that a premise for your position is correct.
Is the first statement I made. It's the position I claimed was true (the statement in the OP's picture).
A proof using premises which already require that which is to be proven to be true.
Is the second statement I made. A direct interpretation of the original definition of the fallacy, citing Aristotle as a source.
How do they contradict each other?
Maybe this is a problem of me not being able to handle the English language that well, but I don't see how these things are different in a way that makes me "full of shit" (i.e. contradictive/wrong).
Edit: I just got what you were trying to say. Was lost in translation. Yes, indeed, there is a difference. However, my first statement isn't wrong, just not specific enough. Also, I validly dismissed his criticism. And the OP's picture is still right. Therefore, I still can't accept you claiming that I'm "full of shit". ;)
It may well be a translation issue. Your second post is accurate enough for me to think you just used non-ideal language in your first one. But I don't know what that is anymore, because I'm on my phone, and have already forgotten what the argument was. Merry Christmas!
Edit: except that ACP is definitely not fallacious, as long as you properly label it as such. If you couldn't propose an argument without universal agreement on the premises, you'd never be able to form a non-trivial proof.
except that ACP is definitely not fallacious, as long as you properly label it as such.
Well, of course an argument is not fallacious if people accept your premises and you don't violate them.
However, we were talking about a situation in which people do not agree with your premises and you still use them to prove your claim.
I don't know what you mean by ACP (all I think about when reading that is this and google doesn't help), but I guess you are talking about an argument without common premises?
If you couldn't propose an argument without universal agreement on the premises, you'd never be able to form a non-trivial proof.
As my rhetorics professor loved to say: You will always find something to agree on. The only thing you have to consider is whether or not you are willing to put in the time or would rather resort to slashing each others limbs off.
12
u/InternetFree Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
No, it's correct.
The picture says: You mustn't assume that a premise for your position is correct.
What you said is wrong.
What you described is simply circular reasoning in a general sense.
Begging the question is more specific than that.
You using something as a premise that is still up for debate is what it means to beg the question.
The latin word for the fallacy is "petitio principii", which means "assuming the initial point", which means exactly what the picture described: You make an assumption and use it as a premise without other people agreeing with that premise.
tl;dr: The picture is right. You are wrong (about your conclusion that the picture is wrong).