0:06

them
0:13
this video is about another fallacy and I'm actually going to be interpreting it
0:18
in a %uh strict sense
0:20
a little bit more strict and certain logic or critical thinking text books
0:23
call begging the question
0:25
on what we're gonna do in this video is the usual
0:29
eight things we're gonna talk about what begging the question is interest specif
y
0:33
the meaning of the app
0:34
we're going to look at the structure of the
0:37
argument involved in begging the question really talk about why it's a
0:41
fallacy what's going wrong with with reasoning or inference argumentation in
0:46
this case
0:47
will on examine some common situations in which this is likely to become an
0:52
issue
0:53
will then look at three specific examples to
0:57
provide you some some you know ideas about what this looks like when when it
1:01
happens
1:02
will I'm than talk about how to spot this fallacy
1:06
are some some guidelines some pointers for that for those who are students who
1:10
need to be able to distinguish this from other fallacies
1:13
will talk about what this fallacy typically gets mistaken for
1:16
he and will finish up by talking about how you
1:20
if you want to be a critical thinker can try to you know
1:24
how make yourself into the cat person is not going to get taken in at this
1:28
who's not going to do this with other people was not going to fall into this
1:31
was our dispositions
1:33
do you need to cultivate so what is begging the question
1:37
that is a very interesting one right there
1:41
I want to point out from the start that this he has a few classic
1:46

synonyms the a tutsi open kitty

1:49
%uh the history on pro tour on you don't necessarily need to know those although
1:54
it can be helpful because
1:55
you think about what they damian ones Latin ones Greek
1:59
what is begging the question so in
2:02
when you're doing that a claim is being advanced and the basis for the claim
2:08
in the argument is simply a Restatement up the original claim and some other
2:13
form
2:14
so if we want to put this in other terms the premise ease
2:18
up the arguments in some way include the conclusions being smuggled it
2:24
right
2:24
it's being you know brought him under a different guys
2:28
so when the premises then are certain to be true it looks like the conclusion
2:32
follows when really all you've done is said the same thing twice
2:36
with different words often the restatement of the claim will work with
2:41
their certain techniques you can use that this
2:43
through moving from the abstract to the concrete you know you change the
2:48
terminology a bit
2:49
or from ordinary language to more technical or
2:52
elevated language english is great for this because we have so many words
2:56
they came to us from anglo-saxon and so many they came from
3:00
in a French and Latin and CT scan to change the
3:03
Adam ology and it sounds like you're saying something different now
3:07
this is a very important point despite
3:12
popular late modern usage especially on talking head politics shows
3:18
or culture shows begging the question
3:22
is not simply making an unstated assertion
3:25
or assumptions yeah unstated assumption or leaving some other question
3:30
open or unanswered that's not begging the question
3:35
that's not what it means in the classic sense I know that a lot of people say
3:38

things like that

3:39
%uh but those people at Lisa for doing critical thinking
3:42
are technically wrong I'm
3:45
what they mean is that there's some sort of implicit promise
3:49
or there's something else that hasn't been answered on
3:53
so you wanna be careful with that now let's look at the structure the fallacy
3:57
in this version
4:01
%uh that I said I said we're looking at it in a strict sense rights that's not
4:05
including circular argumentation we're just looking at
4:08
begging the question you've got some promise that's we're gonna call claim
4:12
why
4:12
claim why is really claim axe restated in some other way
4:17
the conclusion is going to be there for clay max is true
4:21
so you're saying claim all I therefore clay max
4:25
but claim why is really the same thing as clay max
4:29
and what are the possible promises that perhaps a person doing this is not
4:33
realizing that they're doing it
4:35
isn't in
4:36
no assuming is that claim why is in some way not the same thing as clay max when
4:41
that's not really the case
4:43
so the structure this is extraordinarily simple
4:47
you just have claim why which amounts to claim
4:50
axe articulated in some different sounding manner some different ways in
4:55
different words
4:56
and then that's being used to say that claim axe
4:59
is true I'm very simple structure when you look at
5:03
now why is a fallacy I think this is probably pretty commonsensical a lot of
5:09
people can see this when we
5:10
actually mapped it out there's no actual ground being provided for why you shoul
d
5:15
accept claim

5:16
axe in the first place yours repeating it it sorta like saying
5:19
well why should go to the store workers which got a star why should we go to the
5:23
movies
5:24
Roach go to the movies not somebody doesn't like that
5:27
that bald face Glee right then it's very easy to say well that's that's not any
5:32
reason at all
5:33
when so many changes around then
5:36
it's a little bit easier to be taken in I'm
5:40
what's interesting about this is while there appears to be some sort of
5:43
structure a argument your inference
5:46
there really isn't any other than just axe therefore
5:49
axe and if axes the thing is being called in question
5:54
you can go from the first tax to the second axe because you don't have the
5:58
the X in the first place it's not been something granted
6:01
so I'm what are some common situations
6:05
in which this occurs I seen this happen a lot
6:08
in situations where people either don't realize that the claim is being restated
6:13
or where it's being done in a minute appeal to the way to try to trick the
6:17
audience
6:18
on by by using different vocabulary it occurs in a lot of different contexts
6:23
ranging from marketing and advertising we're gonna see some like that in just a
6:28
moment
6:28
to politics a.m. policy-making a lot ok political discussions
6:33
lot of political speeches just consistent saying the same thing over
6:37
and over again
6:38
but changing around the verbiage I'm
6:42
education this is a problem I often
6:46
I actually have a professor one time
6:48
I'm whose response to being a
6:51
ask critical questions about a particular passage in the taxed

6:56
was to go back and then read the text and say well we'll see
7:00
site it's a look I think that that took I was wrong on this because he
7:06
XYZ and then you'll see it's a well
7:10
let's take a look at that and and there was never any
7:13
response going out he thought that simply by
7:16
restating what hits the first place that somehow
7:20
it would just become clear to us and that would that would deal with the
7:23
problem
7:23
that's really question banking in a in a certain way
7:26
just on a higher-order level our religion
7:30
sometimes people will just restate things you know using fancy terminology
7:35
derived from Latin or Greek ur
7:37
are you know other languages on
7:40
is particularly initiation to put on there as well
7:44
in New Age is sorta things where people are talking about or
7:48
Hazare you know they define the already it's just you know some other
7:52
verbiage that's being used a medicine and psychotherapy
7:56
this is offered a problem lot doctors
8:00
actually engaged in this sort of thing as a way to
8:04
obfuscate so that patients are to
8:07
alarmed right those tell you the same thing twice
8:11
I'm psychotherapy can often involve this sorta thing is sometimes where the
8:16
practitioner immerse I'll
8:17
gets taken in by their own begging the question
8:21
discussions at the static matters you know what's cool what's not cool what
8:26
makes it cool
8:27
on United's restated in some other way and the action
8:31
can be an issue on you know it also thinking about whether something falls
8:36
within a particular genre or not
8:38
could be a a matter like that we're talking about a statics

8:42
now let's talk about a few funny examples
8:45
I like this one out why pop music is so popular
8:49
made up this band a while back if I number right
8:53
goo Gaga has the hottest new band they're just chilling everywhere on the
8:57
charts in record sales and selling out concert club dates
9:01
what makes them so hot you ask everyone wants to play in purchase their music
9:05
fans can't get enough for this stuff
9:07
well what does it mean
9:10
to actually P killing it everywhere
9:14
to be so hot it means that people by their records are by their mp3 search
9:19
by their concert tickets are where their t-shirts ruin after I
9:22
it's a saying the same thing twice but it sounds as if you're saying two
9:26
different things in this case
9:28
let's leave the second example I call this a bad anti-capitalist argument 3 to
9:33
be reasons to be against capitalism in
9:35
in general or in particulars but this is not a particularly good argument here
9:40
any sort of market-based system is going to require that some people be involved
9:44
in productive labor
9:46
but productive labor to market-based economy always entails a good be
9:49
produced through appropriating the labor others unfairly
9:52
therefore all capital systems are necessarily exploitative for the workers
9:56
labor
9:57
was exploited mean exploitative means that there's some serve appropriate
10:02
shove the labor
10:03
it you know others unfairly so it's basically saying
10:06
will be no all capital systems are exploited labor's
10:10
the workers labor why because all capital systems
10:13
are necessarily exploded over the labor %uh the workers labor it's just saying
10:18
the same thing
10:18
twice and this can often happen when people are using a lot of technical

10:24
vocabulary see this a lot in political philosophy discussions
10:28
I here's an interesting one called cheaters gonna cheat
10:32
he's always been to the philandering mattress and duplicitous character you
10:37
can trust anyone
10:38
who has those qualities to respect legitimate boundaries and limits on the
10:41
marital bond you know he's gonna cheat on you
10:43
so the conclusion is gonna cheat on you I
10:46
and all that other stuff that's been said their is basically saying he's
10:50
gonna cheat on you
10:51
his Ave philandering which is cheating just
10:55
character right and duplicitous character lying right you can trust
11:00
anyone to respect those
11:01
the legitimate boundaries limit so the marital bond was i mean
11:05
cheating right so this is the whole bunch of verbiage
11:09
you know in the in the premises being thrown in there
11:12
to arrive at the same place where you started he's gonna cheat
11:16
on never been actually you know made clear
11:20
that to any of this stuff is is in fact true because it's just
11:24
axe therefore axe now how do you spot
11:28
begging the question how what should you be on the lookout for when you're
11:32
considering an argument examine the terms that are being used
11:35
in the argument are the terms that are being used in the conclusion
11:40
showing up in the primacy is some other should be
11:43
because cuz otherwise you don't have an argument are you have a non sequitur
11:46
up but in a restated form that conceals the fact that their actually the same
11:52
terms that's the problem there you wanna watch out for that sort of thing
11:56
one way you can do this is by making sure that something additional so what's
12:01
contained in the conclusion
12:03
is really being supplied in the premises
12:06
because the promises are supposed to provide some grounds for you to believe

12:10
the conclusion if you are we believe the conclusion there wouldn't be any
12:13
argument the first place
12:14
so the promises are supposed to give you something ac stress something additiona
l
12:19
and if they're not doing that then you may have this fallacy
12:23
also look carefully at the premises to discern what would be
12:27
what would need to be true are accepted in order for the primacy is themselves
12:31
to be
12:32
accepted if the answer is at the conclusion should be true accepted
12:36
then be on guard against this felsic there could be other cases
12:40
I love fallacies that involved thats I don't wanna say automatically
12:44
that that's going to be begging the question but you should be on your guard
12:48
now this leads us to how do you distinguish this from
12:51
other fallacies right and there's two main fallacies that this gets mixed up
12:56
what are these is what we call complex question
13:01
I'm when you're asking a complex question
13:04
the there's assumptions being made in the question the
13:07
the you know Bob perfect example that is have you could beating your wife
13:12
right yes she answer you ask than you know why repeating her in the first
13:15
place
13:16
if you answered no are you still beating your wife notices assumptions being
13:19
built in there
13:21
it kinda looks like bagging the question and
13:24
if you're the kind of person who tends to
13:27
use begging the question in the sloppy
13:31
late modern meaning assumptions are being made can away
13:36
then you will very easily confuse bagging the question
13:40
with complex question so that's why
13:43
you'd want to distinguish them right that's why you want to be careful with
13:48
your terminology
13:49

you can also be mistaken for what we call a circular argument

13:54
and in a circular argument the premise sees
13:58
are assuming something they're suing the truth so the conclusion rather than
14:02
than actually leading to the truth to the conclusion in order for the promises
14:06
to be true the conclusion in some way needs to be granted there's some
14:09
circular arrangement going on there not here to talk about that in a in a
14:14
separate video
14:15
because it is really structurally a different kind of argument it's similar
14:19
to begging the question
14:20
some logic text books kinda I'm
14:23
you know in my view non rigorously lump the two of them together
14:28
but structurally they're not quite the same so we do want to be able to
14:32
distinguish those
14:33
if you're taking a class where the professor of course is using one of
14:37
those tax books like say her lease for example
14:39
I'm well you better do with the professor wants you to do and classify
14:43
it that way
14:44
but if we're being very exacting rigorous about this
14:47
begging the question is something slightly different that a circular
14:50
argument now
14:52
not every case where the terms are being restated from the conclusion to the
14:55
premises
14:56
are necessarily begging the question so I don't want you to jump in
15:00
and automatically assume that if there's been some sort of vocabulary change fro
m
15:04
one to the other
15:05
that is begging the question is there something being added
15:08
in the primacy is that will support the conclusion
15:11
then it's it's probably going to be you know either a good argument on its own
15:16
face or
15:16
there something else wrong with not disrupt last

15:20
I'm how do you avoid falling into this fallacy
15:25
when you're engaging in making a case
15:28
using arguments right make sure that your
15:32
actually providing grounds
15:34
reasons for the claim they are making that are
15:37
in some way different than the claim that you're trying to get people to
15:43
accept
15:43
provide privacy is that are actually different
15:47
though having the same you know overlap in some degree
15:50
love terms than the conclusion because otherwise you're you're likely to fall
15:55
into this
15:55
also you know be careful with terminology don't don't allow words 22
16:00
get you all mixed up don't allow them to seduce you
16:04
I'm don't use the thesaurus for example the try to make arguments don't assume
16:08
that because terms are like sickly different
16:10
that they don't actually refer to the same thanks sometimes they do
16:14
a.m. if you find yourself restating a conclusion and providing some privacy is
16:19
as justification
16:21
if you fall into the fallacy that is see if you can provide some independent
16:26
justification that somebody else who
16:28
you know saw the problem with that could accept see if there's some other way to
16:32
argue for the point that you wanna make
16:34
last thing I'm gonna say is that this video is part
16:38
%uh a entire series on the informal fallacies
16:42
which in turn is part of a much larger channel
16:45
devoted specifically to critical thinking logic in argumentation
16:49
so if you enjoy this video if you enjoyed this sort of stuff come back to
16:53
the channel
16:53
share it with other people I and I'll pass it around this is very helpful
16:58
stuff

16:58
in continuing your own process for becoming a better critical thinker
17:09
the