Begging the question as I understand it is when you assume the conclusion is true in your premise.
If begging the question is invalid, but the reason begging the question is invalid begs the question, then begging the question must be valid, leading to a contradiction.
Therefore, to show that begging the question is invalid you can’t beg the question so why is begging the question invalid without begging the question?
In: 0
>If begging the question is invalid, but the reason begging the question is invalid begs the question
It does not follow that “if begging the question is invalid” then “the reason begging the question is invalid begs the question.”
Specifically, begging the question does not assert its own validity. In fact, it asserts the validity of nothing. It is merely the description of a logical fallacy, not a logical argument in itself.
A *valid* argument in logic means a specific thing. That “specific thing” is that the conclusion of the argument arises from a sequence of logical inferences starting from a set of premises. If the premises themselves contain the conclusion, then it is no longer true that the conclusion arose from a sequence of logical inferences, ergo the argument is not valid.
>If begging the question is invalid, but the reason begging the question is invalid begs the question, then begging the question must be valid, leading to a contradiction.
Assuming “begging the question” was a logical argument that could be valid or invalid, it’s invalidity would not be a contradiction for two reasons. While valid means the conclusion is true (if the premises are true), invalid doesn’t mean false. It just means the truth of the conclusion is not demonstrated by the provided logical inferences. For there to be a contradiction you must show that something is both true *and* false.
Latest Answers