# beg the question



## Anekântavadin

Quelqu'un aurait-il une traduction correcte de l'expression "begging the question" ?
Si je ne m'abuse, dans la langue courante, 'without begging the question' signifie quelque chose du type 'sans avoir à proprement parlé répondu à la question, on va faire comme si et continuer'.
Mais qu'en est-il de l'expression technique qui désigne une faute de raisonnement ? Quelqu'un a-t-il une proposition qui conviendrait mieux que 'pétition de principe' ?
Merci !!


----------



## Broff

You can use the latin expression: *petitio principii*


----------



## sam's mum

Just a note: This expression is much misused in BE and is often used (wrongly) to mean _to raise the question_


----------



## Gargamelle

It's much misused in AE, too.  

Gargamelle


----------



## Shang Qin Li

Sorry to disagree. "beg the question" is not a misuse, but an idiom
Ref: Newsweek (Mac Caig & Manser). It means, I quote:
"assume that the truth of a statement is also the proof of it"
As an example (other quote):
"Telling your child who asks why his dachshund has short legs that all dachshunds have short legs is begging the question"


----------



## Suehil

Shang Qin Li, I totally agree with you.  At the same time I agree with Gargamelle and sam's mum, who say that it is often used differently - and incorrectly - to mean 'raise the question'.


----------



## robzuck

as sam's mum notes, _beg the question_ is often misused to mean "raises the question" - but in ae it is so often misused that the misuse is, i believe, in danger of becoming incorporated into the language -(this has happened with such words as _notorious_, which is now used to mean _well known_!) - the correct use of _beg the question_ is exactly as shang qin li indicated, but unfortunately few ae speakers even understand the correct usage - how is it in the uk?


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Merriam-Webster indeed has this meaning in its first entry:
_Beg the question_ _1*:* to pass over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled_
But its second entry:
_2__*:* to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response __<the quarterback's injury begs the question of who will start in his place>_
is in the line of _to raise the question_, though many of you seem to quote it as a misuse?
Edit
The Cambridge Online only cites this 2nd (erroneous?) meaning:_
Beg the question
If a statement or situation begs the question, it causes you to ask a particular question:
Spending the summer travelling round India is a great idea, but it does rather beg the question of how we can afford it.
To discuss the company's future begs the question whether it has a future._


----------



## tramtramno

Shang Qin Li said:


> Sorry to disagree. "beg the question" is not a misuse, but an idiom
> Ref: Newsweek (Mac Caig & Manser). It means, I quote:
> "assume that the truth of a statement is also the proof of it"
> As an example (other quote):
> "Telling your child who asks why his dachshund has short legs that all dachshunds have short legs is begging the question"


From your 2d example, I don't get the difference with "éluder la question" (avoiding the question).
Maybe you have another example in english?


----------



## robzuck

ps: i think the original 'correct' use derives from "begging off the question" i.e., 'avoiding the question' or 'eluder la question' as tramtramno notes - but, tramtramno, it is really more - it is a philosophical/linguistic? technique of answering the question with a restatement of the question

Anekântavadin: you are correct, it is a _faute de raisonnement_


----------



## tramtramno

JeanDeSponde said:


> _Beg the question
> 1*:* to pass over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled_
> But its second entry:
> _2*:* to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response <the quarterback's injury begs the question of who will start in his place>_
> is in the line of _to raise the question_, though many of you seem to quote it as a misuse?


In 1/ I would write "éluder la question"
In 2/ I would write "poser la question" (like in "raise the question")


----------



## guylearningfrench

c'est une très bonne question à laquelle j'attends la réponse, mais pour l'instant je peux vous dire que dans mes seminaires de philo (en français) mes profs disent souvent, faute d'une meilleure expression, simplement "question begging," ou "sans begging the question," dépendant du contexte.


----------



## tramtramno

Ah c'est intéressant ça; c'est au Québec ??? ou un lycée français au Canada anglophone ?

Peux-tu nous donner un exemple concret de ce que tes profs considèrent comme "begging the question" ?
S'il s'agit d'un raisonnement circulaire on peut peut-être parler de syllogisme (voir Begging the question - Wikipedia)


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Est-ce que ce n'est pas ce qu'on appelle, en français, _répondre par un truisme_ ?
_- Nous allons gagner la guerre, parce que nous ne pouvons pas la perdre
- Ce n'est pas une explication, c'est un truisme !_


----------



## guylearningfrench

tramtramno said:


> Ah c'est intéressant ça; c'est au Québec ??? ou un lycée français au Canada anglophone ?
> 
> Peux-tu nous donner un exemple concret de ce que tes profs considèrent comme "begging the question" ?
> S'il s'agit d'un raisonnement circulaire on peut peut-être parler de syllogisme (voir Begging the question - Wikipedia)


Oui, au Québec. Un syllogisme comprend nécessairement un certain élément de circularité, mais il n'équivaut pas la même sorte de raisonnement que l'on qualifie comme "question begging." Par ailleurs j'ai l'impression que mes profs écrivent plutôt l'expression latine 'petitio principii.' 

Je n'ai pas d'exemples en tête (on ne s'y attarde pas tellement), mais je peux offrir la justification suivante pour la démocratie comme exemple de question begging: 

1. La démocratie exprime la volonté du peuple.
2. Elle est caracterisée alors par l'autogouvernance.
3. Alors, nous devrions adopter la démocratie.

L'arguement "begs the question" puisque la justification offerte ne fait qu'énumérer des éléments de la démocratie elle-même. Autrement dit, la démocratie se justifie, alors que l'on voudrait faire appel à des critères externes à la définition de la démocratie pour la justifier. Ici, the question that is begged is, pourquoi trouverions-nous ces éléments de la démocratie bons? La réponse devra sortir d'une simple énumération de critères définitionels. 

J'espère que ça aide, mais je mentionne comme démenti que je n'étudie pas la logique, bien que j'aie du suivre quelques cours.


----------



## Anekântavadin

Thanks you all!!

*>> JeanDeSponde* “To discuss the company's future begs the question whether it has a future”
> Beautiful example!

*>> Shang Qin Li* *&* *Robzuck* : Thank you to have stress that what I was looking for is a technical term in the field of fallacies of reasoning (the context is the rather specialised one of the mediaeval indian corpus about the theories of inference…so the reference to syllogistic was the one needed!) and the definitions you gave helped me to understand this concept!

*>> Guylearningfrench* : “dans mes séminaires de philo (en français) mes profs disent souvent, faute d'une meilleure expression, simplement ‘question begging’”
  > So do we ! (a research group in philosophy of logic in France)
  > (It is just really unhappy when you say  “un syllogisme comprend nécessairement un certain élément de circularité”)

*>> Tramtamno *:
>As for *Wikipedia*, I am a little doubtfull: actually, _petitio principii_ sounds to be rather a specified type of begging the question than an equivalent to it.
>And, more important, the example provided by this wiki-entry is NOT a question of begging it, but a perfectly valid inference!
When you say:


*A* (Paul is speaking) entails *B* (Paul is telling the truth)​ 
And *A* (Paul is speaking) 

Therefore *B* (Paul is telling truth)​
The conclusion _is_ derived and makes us gain the knowledge that the truth of ‘Paul is telling the truth’ depends on the truth of both of the mentioned premises. There is no begging the question here, contrary to (if I rightly understood):

*A* (Paul is not lying when he speaks) 

Therefore *A’* (Paul is telling the truth)​
*>> As for me!*
>Could we propose the following classification: _petitio principii_ is included in ‘begging the question’ arguments, themselves included in circular arguments?
>…& is this forum the right place to create word that is so obviously lacking?  
If it is, “éluder la question” is good, but in the lack of a french nominal expressing this notion, I propose to welcome ‘une esquive de problème’ … uh … well … this is not graceful at all, yet … I'd better wait for your suggestions!
>And what is the grammatical class of the expression anyway? I am now looking for the nominal of ‘begging the question’!


----------



## tramtramno

Sorry, I mean "sophisme", not "syllogisme" 

I feel this discussion becomes quite specialised in logic, so let me try a couple of examples:
Are the following good examples of "begging the question" (I quote the skepdic.com website here):
​


> *We know God exists because we can see the perfect order of His Creation, an order which demonstrates supernatural intelligence in its design.*​
> The conclusion of this argument is that God exists. The premise _assumes_ a Creator and Designer of the universe exists, i.e., that God exists. In this argument, the arguer should not be granted the assumption that the universe exhibits intelligent design, but should be made to provide support for that claim.​





> *Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being and as such is murder. Murder is illegal. So abortion should be illegal.*​
> The conclusion of the argument is entailed in its premises. If one assumes that abortion is murder then it follows that abortion should be illegal because murder is illegal. Thus, the arguer is assuming abortion should be illegal (the conclusion) by assuming that it is murder. In this argument, the arguer should not be granted the assumption that abortion is murder, but should be made to provide support for this claim.​


Both are good examples of what we call "sophisme" in french.

As far as i know, 
A "syllogisme" is a type of reasoning that uses inference.
A "sophisme" is an invalid syllogisme: it sound like a sound reasoning, but contains a mistake in the terms, that make it invalid;

So, if I inderstand correctly, "begging the question" is a particular type of sophisme, where, in order to prove the conclusion, one assumes that this very conclusion is true, without proving it.


----------



## cercle vicieux

Tout d'abord, merci de très bon discussion sur ce sujet, c'est carrément intéressant. Aussi, je voudrais pardonner mon français, aussi bien que mon anglais, je ne suis ni francophone, ni anglophone ; tous les deux sont des langue étrangères à moi, mais j'espère que vous me comprenez et bien sûr j'apprécierais que vous corrigiez mes erreurs.  

Je suis un étudiant et dois faire des commentaires de texte, et normalement il faut commenter l'argumentation. En ce contexte-ci, est-ce que "éluder la question" est vraiment équivalent française à l'expression anglaise "to beg the question" ? Ou bien, est-ce que on peut marquer un argument faux avec cette expression ?

Je crois que tramtramno a déjà proposé cette traduction, mais il me semble que la discussion n'a pas continué sur ce sujet. Ainsi, je ne le trouve pas trop claire, si cette traduction est affirmé, ou est-ce que ce n'est pas tout à fait correct.

  Je vous donne un exemple directement d'un commentaire que j'écris actuellement. 

"...on risque néanmoins de coulisser à une sorte de petitio principii, c'est-à-dire qu'on peut-être élude la question [ici, je répète la première question, à laquelle on est censée de répondre]..."

Est-ce qu'éluder la question est une sorte de petitio principii, ou non ? J'apprécie, en particulier, la correction de la phrase cité (parce que c'est d'un travail écrit que je dois faire pour un cours).

J'espère que j'arrive à faire sens et, en demande, je clarifierai la question avec plaisir. C'est maintenant le deuxième effort de poster la première fois ici. Donc, espérons que ça passe mieux cette fois. Merci de toutes réponses.


----------



## Shang Qin Li

I would say:
_"....de tomber dans une sorte de.._ " or "_glisser vers_" instead of "coulisser à" which not at all correct
and
"..c'est-à-dire que *l'on peut éluder* la question"

"éluder" (elude in English) means "avoiding answering a question in a very clever way"
In other words, you actually do not give the answer; as the French say "_vous répondez à coté_"
"begging the question" implies a "circular argument"
 Here is a link that might help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petitio_principii


----------



## jlan

This is an old thread (not that this is of any bearing on the issue), but I noticed that no one has reacted to JeanDeSponde's post (#8) above.

Sam's mum, Gargamelle and Suehil all stated that _*beg the question *_is much misused in English to mean _*raise the question*_, which _robzuck _(#7) seconded, adding that it is so frequently so that this misuse may be incorporated into the language. This is of course somewhat of a tautological statement (which blends in nicely with the discussion on logical fallacies here), since, if it is frequently used in that sense, then that sense _has _been incorporated into the language. To this JeanDeSponde remarked (or rather implied with his post) that it has quite formally so, as that meaning is included (_in first position_, for that matter) both in the Merriam Webster and the Cambridge dictionaries. 

I just checked and this supposedly erroneous sense of the expression is still now (after eight years) included in both those dictionaries, with it actually having moved to first position in the Merriam-Webster (whereas the Cambridge now also gives a second meaning as "to talk about something as if it were true, even though it may not be", which, according to JeanDeSponde, was not included eight years ago).

So, this may be more of a question for the English only forum, but is certainly relevant to this thread too: is that usage "correct" in English, then? Are the Merriam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries (which both give this sense in first position, without commenting on its correctness) authority enough to attest of that?


----------



## Hildy1

What's wrong with the good old "pétition de principe", which was mentioned in the original post?

I agree with the people who have pointed out the (annoying!) misuse of "beg the question" in English to mean "raise the question".


----------



## jlan

If it is an "(annoying!) misuse", why is it included (in first position!) in two rather well-reputed English dictionaries?


----------



## Hildy1

Maybe because people who have an interest in philosophy are a minority.


----------



## jlan

That may be so, and one may regret that this original meaning eludes most people. But then, language, like culture, evolves, and words and expressions take on new meanings and/or lose others in the process (and sometimes disappear altogether and are replaced by others -- or not, if there is no longer a use for them). I just have a problem with speaking of *misuse *of a word or expression when used in the sense that the _majority_ of speakers of a language would understand, while speaking of the _correct_ sense for one that would only be understood by a minority (which seems to be the case here, as dictionaries usually put in first position the most common meaning). We may speak of _technical _and _common _use, but _misuse _strikes me as elitist. Who, indeed, is to decide what is the _correct_ use of the word in a language if not the majority of speakers of this language? (I know in France there is the Académie Française and all, but not in English-speaking countries...)


----------



## Hildy1

Yes, indeed, true...


----------



## Uncle Bob

jlan said:


> I just have a problem with speaking of *misuse *of a word or expression when used in the sense that the _majority_ of speakers of a language would understand, while speaking of the _correct_ sense for one that would only be understood by a minority (which seems to be the case here, as dictionaries usually put in first position the most common meaning).


This side in a long-running debate, what I call the "David Crystal anything-goes" argument, rather *begs the question* of whether schools are fulfilling their purpose. Apparently the answer is that they are not.


----------



## jlan

I love the irony in your reply! 

I asked whether what was observed in this thread to be a misuse of the phrase could really be regarded as such, when it is inscribed in first position in dictionaries (and hence must be understood thus by the majority of people). You, _seemingly _criticising my position, use the phrase in that "wrong" sense and castigate schools. Brilliant!


----------



## Uncle Bob

jlan said:


> You, _seemingly _criticising my position, use the phrase in that "wrong" sense and castigate schools. Brilliant!


Not so brilliant, in my reply it doesn't mean "raises the question" since that argument states a policy and doesn't raise questions, it sidesteps the question.

PS This is an excellent example of the misunderstandings caused by allowing a word to have two opposite meanings!


----------



## jlan

Well, however you want to put it, the use you make of the phrase is not the one that was observed to be the correct one in this thread (the "technical" or philosophical meaning of _begging the question_ as "faute de raisonnement", which Anekântavadin asked for a French translation of in the original question), but precisely the use described here by several people as a misuse, included in the two named dictionaries in first position (see links in my post at #24). 

For the "correct" (philosophical, logical) meaning, see the examples given by guylearningfrench, Anekântavadin and tramtamno in posts #15, 16 and 17 above and the Wikipedia entry for Begging_the_question. 

This "correct" meaning is that the conclusion of an argument is actually included in the premise, of which the seeming inference is in fact simply a paraphrase. In our situation, I did not speak of schools either doing or not doing their job, so the _question_ whether they are cannot have been _begged _by my statement in that "correct" philosophical sense. Rather, my statement made _you _ask -- and answer -- that question, but the question being entirely external to my statement, it cannot have been _begged_ by it, in the philosophical sense. One may observe, as you do, that my statement _raises _this question (though possibly it has done so only for you). When you write that the question is _sidestepped _by my statement, this is just another way of expressing that same idea. My statement also sidesteps the other nine thousand trillion questions it would be possible to ask about the matter (and it _necessarily _does so, otherwise I would never have finished my post in a thousand lives). But this is not the "correct", philosophical, sense of _begging the question_.


----------

