Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Fogelin and Sinnott-Armstrong argue that question-begging... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The first argument does not beg the question

    Fogelin and Sinnott-Armstrong argue that question-begging is a dialectical failure relative to an interlocutor's commitments, not an intrinsic logical defect detectable outside conversational context.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    Commitments (philosophical)(as used in evaluating theories)
    The claims, assumptions, or beliefs that a theory requires you to accept in order for it to work.
    Conversational context(what matters for determining if an argument fails)
    The specific situation, relationship, and things already agreed upon between the people having a conversation.
    Dialectical(describing Tiantai's method of 'resolution')
    A way of thinking that works through contradictions or opposing ideas to reach a deeper truth, rather than just picking one side or the other.
    Fogelin and Sinnott-Armstrong(the authors being cited for this argument)
    Two contemporary philosophers who study logic and argumentation; they developed a theory about when arguments fail in conversations.
    Intrinsic logical defect

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    (contrasted with the dialectical approach to question-begging)
    A flaw in reasoning that is wrong by the rules of logic itself, regardless of what anyone believes or the situation.
    interlocutor
    Socrates' partner in dialogue
    question-begging(Epistemology, anti-skeptical argumentation)
    A charge leveled against anti-skeptical arguments that assume what they set out to prove, particularly in Putnamian externalist arguments

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    The first argument does not beg the question

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective