On Begging the Question II

Rhetorical fallacies are linguistic constructions that cause communications to produce results that deviate from what rational exchange would have produced. In many instances, when people use rhetorical fallacies with intent, they're disingenuous, unfair, or even dishonest. But some rhetorical fallacies are so subtle that their users rarely realize that they're confused. What they're saying or writing is leading them to unintended conclusions that differ from what clear thinking would have produced.

The fallacy called begging the question is one of these. It has been distorting debates and decisions since the time of Aristotle — almost 2500 years ago.

Defining the fallacy

In its essentials, to beg the question is to appear to demonstrate the validity of a conclusion in a way that assumes at least one premise without evidence. More often, though, begging the question is defined as using in our argument the very conclusion we're trying to prove. Example:

The golden retriever is the best breed for families with young children. Since we have children, we should choose a golden retriever.

The passage above reads as if it was logically sound, but its conclusion is unproven. It provides no evidence supporting the first statement (golden retriever is the best breed). The ability of this fallacy to fit into illogical passages that appear to be logical is what makes begging the question so dangerous as a rhetorical fallacy.

A long tradition of scholarship…and recent confusion

The The fallacy called begging the question has
been distorting debates and decisions since
the time of Aristotle — almost 2500 years agofallacy we call "begging the question" was identified by Aristotle in Book VIII of Topics. An accessible commentary by Thomas Reid appeared in 1788, with a second edition in 1806. [Reid 1806] As Reid puts it, begging the question, "… is done when the thing to be proved, or something equivalent, is assumed in the premises." Oddly, though, since about 1990, in the English language, there has been some confusion. There is growing use of a construction similar in form to the phrase "begging the question," but entirely unrelated to its meaning. I refer to the form, "begs the question," used in a context in which it means, "raises the question." [Ammer 2006] [Klems 2008]

Grammatically incorrect as this form is, it does have one redeeming virtue: it is not a rhetorical fallacy. It's just bad English. If you find yourself saying or writing "begs the question," when you mean "raises the question," stop. Do not Pass Go. Back up and say, "raises the question" instead.

A role for artificial teammates

With regard to rhetorical fallacies, one might reasonably assert, "If even well-educated people have been using or have been fooled by rhetorical fallacies for thousands of years, then obviously, we can't do anything about it." Actually, that statement is itself an example of Begging the Question. It presumes, without evidence, that a solid education should be sufficient for preventing someone from using or being fooled by rhetorical fallacies.

But failure to notice a rhetorical fallacy might result from factors other than substandard education. For example, confirmation bias (one of hundreds of cognitive biases) can cause us to tend to accept a flawed argument when the conclusion is consistent with our existing beliefs. Strong emotional attachment to a conclusion can have a similar effect.

Controlling the effects of factors such as these requires discipline and energy, which might not be available at the end of a long day of contentious meetings. There is thus an opportunity here for AI teammates. [Kaelin, et al., 2024] AI teammates don't have "long days." They remember every interaction. They could be trained to detect logical fallacies in email, text messages, and meetings. [Jin, et al., 2022] Even before they become capable of human-level fallacy detection rates, they can likely be serviceable assistants to human fallacy detectors.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

Nasty Questions: II

In meetings, telemeetings, and email we sometimes ask questions that aren't intended to elicit information. Rather, they're indirect attacks intended to advance the questioner's political agenda. Here's part two of a catalog of some favorite tactics.

Managing Non-Content Risks: I

When project teams and their sponsors manage risk, they usually focus on those risks most closely associated with the tasks — content risks. Meanwhile, other risks — non-content risks — get less attention. Among these are risks related to the processes and politics by which the organization gets things done.

Managing Non-Content Risks: II

When we manage risk, we usually focus on those risks most closely associated with the tasks at hand — content risks. But there are other risks, to which we pay less attention. Many of these are outside our awareness. Here's Part II of an exploration of these non-content risks, emphasizing those that relate to organizational politics.

Suppressing Dissent: II

Disagreeing with the majority in a meeting, or in some cases, merely disagreeing with the Leader, can lead to isolation and other personal difficulties. Here is Part II of a set of tactics used by Leaders who choose not to tolerate differences of opinion, emphasizing the meeting context.

Additive Bias…or Not: I

When we alter existing systems to enhance them, we tend to favor adding components even when subtracting might be better. This effect has been attributed to a cognitive bias known as additive bias. But other forces more important might be afoot.

See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming June 25: Meandering Monologues in Meetings: Engagement

In a meeting, a meandering monologue has taken over when someone speaks at length with no sign of coming to a clear point, and little of evident value. This behavior reduces engagement on the part of other attendees, thereby limiting the meeting's value to the organization. Available here and by RSS on June 25.

And on July 2: The True Costs of Contractors

Among the more commonly cited reasons for hiring contractors instead of direct employees is cost savings. But are these savings real? Direct compensation, including perks and benefits, might favor the contractor arrangement, but indirect costs tell another story. Available here and by RSS on July 2.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info