"That beggars the question of ..."
Thomas A Lawson
We have seen the shift in meaning of "beg the question" from "ducking
the issue" to "demanding an answer".
But "beggar"?
I mentioned this to a friend, a very well educated woman:
"But I've always said that!"
Well, better than "buggers the question..".
--
Regards,
Tom Lawson
willy_maykit
Local news readers use "begs the question" to mean "prompts one to
ask"--I know that isn't right. It really is a type of argument tactic
(that I don't really understand) that is something like circular
reasoning. Even though I am not completely clear on the actual
definition, the new usage is annoying.
Not as annoying as all the apostrophe's (sic) that have suddenly
appeared all over the place. What is that about?
Rushtown
>From: willy maykit
>Date: 10/21/00 9:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39f26977...@enews.newsguy.com>
This is a post that comes up the most often, I think, on this NG. I thought I
was very clever when I first posted about it.
The most agreed on interpretation was that
"begs" meant "argues" the question. That is one uses the point under debate as
evidence for the same point.
Example: Are the French rude? Arguement, "Yes I was treated rudely by
some French people at Orly."
Paul Purves
> Local news readers use "begs the question" to mean "prompts one to
> ask"--I know that isn't right. It really is a type of argument tactic
> (that I don't really understand) that is something like circular
> reasoning. Even though I am not completely clear on the actual
> definition, the new usage is annoying.
>
Begs the question means basing it on an unproven assertion. Something
like "How long after the Creation of Earth was it before man appeared?"
For all right thinking people this is begging the question of whether
Earth was created, or was it really formed from primal dust that
accreted under the effect of gravity.
Paul
--
Cynic's Dictionary: Brain - The seat of cerebration; the source of wonder; a
two-room cottage occupied by an artist and an accountant engaged in a perpetual
tug-of-war.
Arcadian Rises
>The most agreed on interpretation was that
>"begs" meant "argues" the question. That is one uses the point under debate
>as
>evidence for the same point.
>Example: Are the French rude? Arguement, "Yes I was treated rudely by
>some French people at Orly."
I *beg* to disagree.
The example you gave is a hasty generalization. Granted, it belongs to the same
family of fallacies of presumption, but it's not begging the question.
You beg the question when, instead of offering proof, you simply reassert the
conclusion in a different form; e.g.:
X lost the election because he didn't get enough votes. The question still
unanswered (begged): why didn't he get enough votes?
The typical example of begging the question (a.k.a. the vicious circle):
God exists, because the Bible sez so.
How do you know that the Bible is true?
Because it's the word of God.
Arcadian Rises
>Begs the question means basing it on an unproven assertion. Something
>like "How long after the Creation of Earth was it before man appeared?"
That's also a fallacy of presumption, called "complex (loaded, leading)
question", which in *certain* instances can pass as the interrogative form of
begging the question.
Virgil
<ppu...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> In article <39f26977...@enews.newsguy.com>, willy maykit wrote:
>
> > Local news readers use "begs the question" to mean "prompts one to
> > ask"--I know that isn't right. It really is a type of argument tactic
> > (that I don't really understand) that is something like circular
> > reasoning. Even though I am not completely clear on the actual
> > definition, the new usage is annoying.
> >
>
> Begs the question means basing it on an unproven assertion. Something
> like "How long after the Creation of Earth was it before man appeared?"
>
> For all right thinking people this is begging the question of whether
> Earth was created, or was it really formed from primal dust that
> accreted under the effect of gravity.
>
> Paul
The ultimate question beg:
"Have you stopped beating your wife."
Rushtown
>Date: 10/30/00 10:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Vmhjr-23169F....@news.frii.com>
Nope, that's just a compound question.
"I don't beat my wife because beating is
mean and I'm not mean." I think that's
"begging" (meaning "arguing") the question.
Paul Purves
<Vm...@frii.com> wrote:
> The ultimate question beg:
> "Have you stopped beating your wife."
That was my first thought of an example, but I decided it was a bit too
likely to attract unwelcome comment. (As distinct from welcome comment.)
Paul
--
Cynic's Dictionary: Genetic engineering - tampering with chromosomes so that
science might develop a new miracle cure or a rabbit that plays the banjo.
David McMurray
> In article <ppurves-6DBBD1...@news.xtra.co.nz>, Paul Purves
> <ppu...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[...]
> > Begs the question means basing it on an unproven assertion.
No, it doesn't. It means assuming the truth of an assertion and then
using that assumption to prove that the assertion is true.
"Question" refers to the issue being debated, which may not be in the
form of a question.
> > Something
> > like "How long after the Creation of Earth was it before man appeared?"
> >
> > For all right thinking people this is begging the question of whether
> > Earth was created, or was it really formed from primal dust that
> > accreted under the effect of gravity.
That's not an example of begging the question -- it's simply a question
which happens to contain some unproven assumptions (including, perhaps,
the assumption that creation is spelled with a capital "C").
--
David
David McMurray
[...]
> The ultimate question beg:
> "Have you stopped beating your wife."
It depends on the question. If the question is "Cannibalism is
uncivilized", for example, then the ultimate question beg is "No
civilized person eats human flesh".
--
David
Alan J. Flavell
[amongst lavish quotage, which is always worrying on usenet...]
> >> Begs the question means basing it on an unproven assertion.
Indeed...
> "I don't beat my wife because beating is
> mean and I'm not mean." I think that's
> "begging" (meaning "arguing") the question.
What foolishness is this? Not even the usual _mis_interpretation of
"begging the question" involves arguing it.
Rushtown
>Date: 10/31/00 4:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Pine.OSF.4.21-pb.0011...@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk>
This is the explanation given in the FAQ of this NG. So don't go apopletic at
"what foolishness is this". It's the correct answer.
Peter Moylan
Donna regularly posts pointers to the aue FAQ. It doesn't seem to agree
with whatever FAQ you're reading.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
See http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au for OS/2 information and software
Rushtown
>Date: 10/31/00 7:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <slrn8vv3vm...@eepjm.newcastle.edu.au>
Yes it does and this is reported repeatedly
on this NG when this oh so very popular thread is repeated each month.
"Begging the question" means using the fact which in dispute as one of your
arguments in support. It is often also pointed out that "begging" has and
alternative older meaning of "pleading" the question.
Alan J. Flavell
> >> "I don't beat my wife because beating is
> >> mean and I'm not mean." I think that's
> >> "begging" (meaning "arguing") the question.
> >
> >What foolishness is this? Not even the usual _mis_interpretation of
> >"begging the question" involves arguing it.
>
> This is the explanation given in the FAQ of this NG.
I'm reasonably familiar with the FAQ, I knew this item was covered so
I had checked before posting: it doesn't appear to support your
contention.
The example which you offered seems to be an example of the correct
technical use of the term, i.e basing the alleged proof on something
which is at least as unproven as the question itself. That was not
the point at which I raised an objection.
It doesn't seem in the least to be "arguing" the question. Even
interpreting the word "argue" in its sense of "prove" or "reason"
(rather than in the sense of dispute), the whole point of "begging the
question" is that no genuine proof is offered, because the purported
proof is defective in this particular way.
> So don't go apopletic at
> "what foolishness is this". It's the correct answer.
The example was a good example. That wasn't my point. It was the
answer, not the example, that I waas objecting to.
all the best
Rushtown
>Message-id: <Pine.OSF.4.21-pb.0011...@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk>
>
If I could find the FAQ I'd post it. You must admit that the word "begging"
seems strange in this idiom. No one is "begging" the question to do anything.
Many people, myself included, took the word "begging" to mean "avoiding". But
I think the correct
interpretation is "using" the question itself as an argument in support.
Sorry for the apoplectic comment----you seem just the opposite. Andrew Smyth
Alan J. Flavell
> If I could find the FAQ I'd post it.
I hope you don't really mean that. Posting a URL to it would be
fairynough.
> But
> I think the correct
> interpretation is "using" the question itself as an argument in support.
Well, you had already _quoted_ this:
>>>> >> Begs the question means basing it on an unproven assertion.
which is just what it's all about: but then you offered your own
explanation, which had given cause for my response...
> Sorry for the apoplectic comment----
OK, "pax".
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~laker/faq/faq.html#ybegthequestiony
cheers
P&D Schultz
>
> On 2 Nov 2000, Rushtown wrote:
> > Sorry for the apoplectic comment----
>
> OK, "pax".
Which beggars the question of what the source is for the custom of
saying "pax" as an amiable end to a dispute.
\\P. Schultz
Virgil
<schu...@erols.com> wrote:
I have heard that it originated between knights practicing at arms or
possibly jousting.
P&D Schultz
>
> In article <3A0221E1...@erols.com>, P&D Schultz
> <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > "Alan J. Flavell" wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2 Nov 2000, Rushtown wrote:
> > > > Sorry for the apoplectic comment----
> > >
> > > OK, "pax".
> >
> > Which beggars the question of what the source is for the custom of
> > saying "pax" as an amiable end to a dispute.
>
> possibly jousting.
Well, there we are. "Beggars the question," meaning "evokes a follow-on
question," was completely effective in communicating its meaning. So the
locution is ok, and is certified for legitimate use, starting now.
\\P. Schultz
Karen Zachary
> > > Which beggars the question of what the source is for the custom of
> > > saying "pax" as an amiable end to a dispute.
> >
> > I have heard that it originated between knights practicing at arms or
> > possibly jousting.
>
> Well, there we are. "Beggars the question," meaning "evokes a follow-on
> question," was completely effective in communicating its meaning. So the
> locution is ok, and is certified for legitimate use, starting now.
What's the difference in meaning between a "follow-on" question and a
"followup" question? Is this a pondian thing? I have always said
"followup." (native US English speaker; Texas dialect)
Jerry Friedman
P&D Schultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A0221E1...@erols.com>, P&D Schultz
> > <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan J. Flavell" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2 Nov 2000, Rushtown wrote:
> > > > > Sorry for the apoplectic comment----
> > > >
> > > > OK, "pax".
> > >
> > > Which beggars the question of what the source is for the custom of
> > > saying "pax" as an amiable end to a dispute.
> >
or
> > possibly jousting.
>
follow-on
> question," was completely effective in communicating its meaning. So
the
> locution is ok, and is certified for legitimate use, starting now.
I don't think that's good evidence. Your communication would probably
have been almost as effective if you had written, 'Which qwertyu the
question of what the source is for the custom of saying "pax" as an
amiable end to a dispute.' For what it's worth, I thought you were
joking.
If you're interested in the answer to that question, I always thought
"pax" in this sense was British public-school or university slang. I
always thought the same thing about "cave" (meaning "watch out!" and
rhyming, I think, with "Davy"). Anyone know for sure?
--
Jerry Friedman
jfrE...@nnm.cc.nm.us
i before e
and all the disclaimers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David McMurray
> Virgil wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A0221E1...@erols.com>, P&D Schultz
> > <schu...@erols.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > Which beggars the question of what the source is for the custom of
> > > saying "pax" as an amiable end to a dispute.
> >
> > I have heard that it originated between knights practicing at arms or
> > possibly jousting.
>
> Well, there we are. "Beggars the question," meaning "evokes a follow-on
> question," was completely effective in communicating its meaning. So the
> locution is ok, and is certified for legitimate use, starting now.
Oh. I thought it meant "evokes a poor but honest question".
--
David