Begging the question

, whose Prior Analytics contained an early discussion of this fallacy The original phrase used by Aristotle from which begging the question descends is , or sometimes , . Aristotle's intended meaning is closely tied to the type of dialectical argument he discusses in his Topics, book VIII: a formalized debate in which the defending party asserts a thesis that the attacking party must attempt to refute by asking yes-or-no questions and deducing some inconsistency between the responses and the original thesis. In this stylized form of debate, the proposition that the answerer undertakes to defend is called () and one of the rules of the debate is that the questioner cannot simply ask (beg) for it (that would be trivial and uninteresting). Aristotle discusses this in Sophistical Refutations and in Prior Analytics book II, (64b, 34–65a 9, for circular reasoning see 57b, 18–59b, 1). The stylized dialectical exchanges Aristotle discusses in the Topics included rules for scoring the debate, and one important issue was precisely the matter of asking for the initial thing—which included not just making the actual thesis adopted by the answerer into a question, but also making a question out of a sentence that was too close to that thesis (for example, PA II 16). The term was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, , can be interpreted in different ways. (from ), in the post-classical context in which the phrase arose, means or , but in the older classical sense means , or . , genitive of , means , or (of an argument). Literally means or . The Latin phrase comes from the Greek ( ) in Aristotle's Prior Analytics II xvi 64b28–65a26: Aristotle's distinction between apodictic science and other forms of nondemonstrative knowledge rests on an epistemology and metaphysics wherein appropriate first principles become apparent to the trained dialectician: Thomas Fowler believed that would be more properly called , which is literally . == Definition ==

To (also called ) is to attempt to support a claim with a premise that itself restates or presupposes the claim. It is an attempt to prove a proposition while simultaneously taking the proposition for granted. When the fallacy involves only a single variable, it is sometimes called a hysteron proteron (Greek for ), a rhetorical device, as in the statement: Reading this sentence, the only thing one can learn is a new word (soporific) that refers to a more common action (inducing sleep); it does not explain why opium causes that effect. A sentence that explains why opium often induces sleep (or the same, why opium has soporific quality) is where the specific physiological processes are omitted for simplicity. A less obvious example from Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap by S. Morris Engel: This form of the fallacy may not be immediately obvious. Linguistic variations in syntax, sentence structure, and the literary device may conceal it, as may other factors involved in an argument's delivery. It may take the form of an unstated premise which is essential but not identical to the conclusion, or is "controversial or questionable for the same reasons that typically might lead someone to question the conclusion": For example, one can obscure the fallacy by first making a statement in concrete terms, then attempting to pass off an identical statement, delivered in abstract terms, as evidence for the original. as here: When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors dub it , or more commonly, circular reasoning. Begging the question is usually not considered a formal fallacy (an argument that is defective because it uses an incorrect deductive step). Rather, it is usually a type of informal fallacy that is logically valid but unpersuasive, in that it fails to prove anything other than what is already assumed. There are some exceptions wherein it may be considered a formal fallacy, such as in non-reflexive logics. == Related fallacies ==

Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of circular reasoning (), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion. 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, circular reasoning is not persuasive because a listener who doubts the conclusion also doubts the premise that leads to it. Begging the question is similar to the complex question (also known as trick question or fallacy of many questions): a question that, to be valid, requires the truth of another question that has not been established. For example, "Which color dress is Mary wearing?" may be fallacious because it presupposes that Mary is wearing a dress. Unless it has previously been established that her outfit is a dress, the question is fallacious because she could be wearing pants instead. Another related fallacy is ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant conclusion: an argument that fails to address the issue in question, but appears to do so. An example might be a situation where A and B are debating whether the law permits A to do something. If A attempts to support his position with an argument that the law to allow him to do the thing in question, then he is guilty of . == Vernacular ==

In vernacular English, begging the question (or equivalent rephrasing thereof) is sometimes used in place of "raises the question", "invites the question", "suggests the question", "leaves unanswered the question" etc. Such preface is then followed with the question, as in: • "[...]personal letter delivery is at an all-time low... Which begs the question: are open letters the only kind the future will know?" • "Spending the summer traveling around India is a great idea, but it does beg the question of how we can afford it." Sometimes it is further confused with "dodging the question", an attempt to avoid it, or perhaps more often begging the question is simply used to mean leaving the question unanswered. == See also ==