Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion. [26] The individual components of a circular argument can be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does not lack relevance. However ...
Loaded label – while not inherently fallacious, the use of evocative terms to support a conclusion is a type of begging the question fallacy. When fallaciously used, the term's connotations are relied on to sway the argument towards a particular conclusion.
Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing. [4] Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
This explains, for example, why arguments that are accidentally valid are still somehow flawed: because the arguer himself lacks a good reason to believe the conclusion. [9] The fallacy of begging the question, on this perspective, is a fallacy because it fails to expand our knowledge by providing independent justification for its conclusion ...
For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife. [2] This informal fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question , [ 3 ] which offers a premise whose plausibility depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and ...
This fallacy can be also confused with petitio principii (begging the question), [10] which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion. [11] Closely connected with [petitio principii] is the fallacy of the Complex Question. By a complex question, in the broadest meaning of that term, is meant one ...
Begging the question, is more formally synonymous with “ignoring a question under the assumption it has already been answered.” Begging the question often creates further questioning and colloquial use of this theory has been repurposed to mean “a question that begs to be answered”. [20]