Begging the Question

The Begging the Question fallacy, (a type of "circular reasoning" or "circular argument,") occurs when an argument assumes the truth of the conclusion it's trying to prove. In other words, it's a fallacy where the premises of an argument are essentially a restatement of the conclusion, making the argument logically invalid. Instead of providing new information or evidence to support a claim, this fallacy relies on circular logic, essentially saying, "This is true because it is true."

Examples

• Circular Definition: In this form of the fallacy, the definition or description of a term includes the term itself, providing no new information.

  • Example: "Lying is immoral because it's an act of deceit, and deceit is immoral."

• Assuming the Conclusion: In this form, the argument assumes the truth of the conclusion without offering any independent evidence.

  • Example: "The Bible is the word of God because God's word is written in the Bible."

• Tautological Statements: Tautologies are statements that are always true by their very nature because they repeat the same idea in different words.

  • Example: "A square has four sides because it's a quadrilateral with four equal angles."

• Self-Referential Claims: In some cases, the argument refers to itself to justify its conclusion.

  • Example: "This statement is the truth because it's a truthful statement."

• Petitio Principii: This Latin term is often used for the Begging the Question fallacy. It's the idea of assuming what needs to be proved.

  • Example: "This new drug is effective because it cures the disease."

The Begging the Question fallacy is problematic because it doesn't provide any genuine support for the conclusion; it merely rephrases the claim in different terms. In a valid argument, the premises should offer new information or evidence that leads to the conclusion, allowing the reader or listener to evaluate the argument on its merits. Recognizing this fallacy is essential for critical thinking and sound reasoning.