Question Begging

Hi, Jacob!

          You have a good question. I have seen many people slip on the meaning of question begging. Question begging does not mean merely that an assumption is being made. Question begging refers to an informal fallacy that can only be committed by an argument or in the course an inference. An argument is question begging just in case the premises of the argument assume the conclusion; in order to accept the premises one would have to have already accepted the conclusion. With this in mind, there are three main steps you can take to identify a question begging argument. Ask yourself:

1. Is it an argument? If no, then it does not beg the question. If yes, proceed to step 2.
2. Analyze the argument, identifying every premise and conclusion. 
3. Is the conclusion assumed by the premises? If not, then the argument does not beg the question. If so, then the argument does beg the question.

          I welcome useful adjustments, especially because there are particular forms of question begging that may not be plain at first sight when run through the steps, such as the form of question begging called "incorrect definition". However, those steps may be seen as a rule of thumb for you, Jacob. Now, take your example: “God has a plan for you”. For this example, the answer to step one is "no". The example makes assumptions, but it is not an argument, let alone one that assumes its conclusion. "God has a plan for you" does not beg the question.

          A further nugget of insight about question begging is this: question begging does not occur just because the arguer believes the conclusion prior to delivering the argument. Just because a person believes a statement prior to arguing for it, does not mean that that statement features as a premise in the argument. 

          I hope the guide and insight help clarify the "strangeness", as you put it, of Question Begging. Let’s look at your next examples, about rainfall.

          Let's run your example about rainfall through the three-step guide. The answer to the first step is no, it is not an argument. This raises an opportunity to make another crucial clarification. The word “because” does not always indicate that an argument is being made. In this example about rainfall, if I am understanding you correctly, you have not made an inference to a conclusion, rather you have STATED that gravity is the cause of rain falling or explanation of why rain falls. In other words, the word "because" does not always function as a "therefore". The word “because” is serving to indicate a reference to an explanation or cause, not to suggest an inference. Similarly, “I tripped down the stairs because my toe caught a wrinkle in the carpet” is not an argument even though the word “because” appears. To answer your first question about this example, I do not think you are wrongly assuming that gravity rather than magic is the cause of falling rain. You are trusting the research of physicists, which seems to me a reasonable way for laymen to proceed, assuming you are a laymen regarding physics.

Thank you for this question, Jacob.

From, Kaiden

In my entry on Begging the Question I have an exception that explains assuming information that is universally acceptable would not be question begging (not fallacious). It also depends on who is conversing. For example, if Christians are speaking to each other, the question, "what do you think God wants from us?" is not fallacious or problematic. It is accepted among Christians that God exists and he wants something from us. So in short, this is a subjective and situational fallacy, just like most informal fallacies.

... if I say that rain falls to the ground because of gravity does this mean I am wrongly assuming that it is gravity and not magic which causes rain to fall to the ground?

Understandably, a petitio Principi can indeed have you running around in circles. I often find myself paying extra scrutiny to the problem and distinction between a begged question and a loaded question.

However, by drawing an equivalency between gravity and magic we encounter yet another logical fallacy of false equivalency.

While Gravity is a proven force of physics, magic is, of course, a non-existent, superstitious, and false teleological ideation. NO SUCH FORCE EXISTS outside of literary fiction, religion, superstition, and theologically-based epistemologies. Quantum Theory proves if there was such a force we would have predicted and detected it by now.

While arguments can be made that magic exists as an art form and an instrument of willful creation (Crowley) there is overwhelming evidence that it falls short of the scientific requirements of predictability, replicability, provability, and falsifiability. Magic fails in three of these while also proving to be eminently falsifiable.

So, no, you're not assuming Gravity exists but merely asserting a proven Law of Physics that meets all of the above scientific requirements that have been proven to be unfalsifiable.

Concluding that God and magic exist is fallacious while claiming Gravity exists is a fact of The Standard Model of Particles. 

As for the pro-life, pro-choice argument, it all comes down to the question of when fetal life begins. Most religions claim it begins at conception, while science argues it is much later. From a scientific position, the destruction of 150 or so cells far less complex than a fly's brain can not be murder because there is no life present in the beginning formation of cells.

So now we enter the treacherous domain of moral equivalency. Religionists claim a superior moral authority from a divine being, whereas science relegates it to a primitive imagination and cognitive mechanism adapted for evolutionary purposes (Dennett).