8 – Begging the Question
p. 237 This chapter should be an easy and restful chapter for you because it introduces the easy and restful concept of begging the question, an error in thinking that was touched on in previous chapters.
Implicit assumptions, if they are accepted without proof, derail our thinking away from the truth and toward error. When we assume the point in dispute or take for granted the truth of something that requires proof, we are said to beg the question.
Begging the question betrays itself frequently by its emotive language. Calling someone a “dastard” or a “knucklehead” implies condemnation, but unless evidence is produced to support the assertions, they merely beg the question. This is especially true if the words that beg the question are shouted, screamed, or screeched. Name calling, especially when shouted, begs the question.
A common place that question begging shows up is in statements by politicians. And there is no better time to observe such words at work than during election campaigns. This is because people like to feel that they are voting after a rational consideration of the arguments put forward by rival parties. Therefore, candidates pretend to appeal to reason while they know full well that the real vote catchers are emotion and prejudice. Their party is that of the future, the party of progress, peace, and prosperity. The other party is the party of the past, the party of retrogression, war, and economic stagnation, and so forth. These are mere assertions that need to be proven. Otherwise, they beg the question.
In politics the tied suggestions of approval or disapproval make a p. 238 great difference in the effect they have on the audience. “Republicans are the party of the rich.” How many times have you heard that? “Democrats are the party of war.” How many times have you heard that? Such sweeping statements might have a nugget of truth attached to them, but they can never be wholly true because they are way too vague and too general.
Tied suggestions (especially in advertisements) beg the question.
The basic principle by which the brain learns things is association. Once two items are firmly associated in the consciousness, each tends to recall the other. This mechanism is responsible for most of the great achievements of the human mind. In a sense, this mechanism is responsible for the richness of associations that make literature, art, and music possible and pleasurable. It is the mechanism that is responsible for all science because it is by association that all scientific laws are induced.
But the same mechanism can derail thinking by making an association that is incorrect, either factually or emotionally. We saw this is in the advertisement for Virginia Slims. Virginia is the name of a type of tobacco and the name of a woman. Since the name often appears with a picture of a beautiful young woman, the natural association we will make, the association that the advertisers want us to make, is that that woman pictured is named Virginia.
Slim does accurately describe the transverse diameter of this particular cigarette in relation to the transverse diameter of other cigarettes, but slim also is a state meaning small in girth in relation to height.
The employment of some word or expression in two different senses without distinction in the same context is an equivocation. If equivocators know that they are equivocating, then they are deceptive. If they don’t know this, then in the most literal sense they do not know what they are talking about.
The use of dual definitions in this Virginia Slims ad bothered the Federal Trade Commission when the cigarette first came out. But the tobacco company was able to persuade the commission that the name reasonably related to the facts that the cigarette was made of Virginia tobacco and was slimmer than other cigarettes. This rationale does not detract from the natural associations we might make, those that the advertisers probably want us to make, that the cigarette, Virginia Slims , somehow made the woman pictured in the ad slim—in fact, slimmer than most—and that by extension smoking Virginia Slims will make any woman who smokes it slim. The claim is not all that unreasonable: p. 239 It has been shown that on average, cigarette smokers weigh less than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who do not smoke. But that is beside the point. The point is that by tied associations, the ad wants us to associate the following with Virginia Slims:
“Youth,”
“sexy,” and
“slim and trim body habitus.”
In the absence of evidence, loads and loads of evidence, such implied claims are unsupported, irrational, and wrong and beg the question.
All tautologies beg the question.
Arguing in a circle is a great way to conceal ignorance. Previously we learned that urine is yellow because it has urochromes, which are yellow pigments. We learned that morphine induces sleep because of its somniferous properties. Both items are mere restatements and beg the questions: What is the yellow pigment? And why does morphine induce sleep?
With this in mind, tell what’s wrong with the statement: “Glass breaks because it is fragile.”
Circular proofs are tautologies and therefore prove nothing.
Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes try to prove the existence of God by reference to the Bible. Citing the authority of the Old Testament, they claim that the Scriptures are divinely inspired. Otherwise said, God exists because we have a text that has been inspired by God. Such a position begs the question “Is the Bible divinely inspired?” If it is divinely inspired, how do we know that for sure?
In my course on clear thinking, I like to use illustrations from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, alias Lewis Carroll, Oxford teacher of mathematics and logic. Recall the delightful scene of Alice with the Cheshire Cat:
“In that direction,” the Cat said, waving its right paw round, “lives a Hatter: and in that direction, lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they’re both mad.”
“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you ca’n’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”
Alice didn’t think that proved it at all[.][1]
p. 240 (She was right. The Cheshire Cat was begging the question.)
Alice went on: “And how do you know that you’re mad?”
Good for Alice. She knows that to prove the Cat’s statement false, she need only show that one person there is not mad. Alice effectively decided to try the argument with the Cat itself. She is asking for the evidence that proves the Cat is mad. Alice knows that if the evidence is not relevant and adequate, the Cat’s statement will not be supported.
“To begin with,” said the Cat, “a dog’s not mad. You grant that?”
“I suppose so,” said Alice.
“Well, then,” the Cat went on, “you see a dog growls when it’s angry, and wags its tail when it’s pleased. Now I growl when I’m pleased, and wag my tail when I’m angry. Therefore, I’m mad.”[2]
The Cheshire Cat’s proof is based on more faulty reasoning: A dog that wags its tail when happy and growls when angry is not mad. But this cat wags its tail when angry and growls when it is happy—just the opposite of the dog. Therefore, if the dog is not mad, then the cat that does the opposite of the dog must be mad. The defect in the analogy is clear: A dog is not a cat. What a normal dog does isn’t necessarily normal for a cat and vice versa. Dogs and cats may share some features, but they don’t share other features because they are different animals. Also notice how Alice questions the Cheshire Cat’s definition of growl and questions the slight change of meaning in context:
“I call it purring, not growling,” says Alice.
“Call it what you like,” answers the Cat (who needs to opt on the side of flexible definitions for his argument to succeed). The Cheshire Cat, seeing Alice’s reasoning getting too close for comfort, changes the subject: “Do you play croquet with the Queen today?”[3]
D
iversions are a common trick to derail thinking. When you encounter a diversion, just get that diverter right back on track. Chances are you won the argument.
Flag words often identify question begging.
Lucky for us, the question begger often begins with phrases that flag the problem: “It is undeniable that; “Nothing is more evident”; “Nothing is simpler than”; “It stands to reason”; “Every schoolboy knows”; “As most of us know”; “Every real American believes”; “Every intelligent person wants”(fill in the blanks).
Clear thinking is impossible unless we use words that refer to facts p. 241 and suspect those that express emotion. When we are told what to believe, what we want, what everyone knows, it is only reasonable to be skeptical and assume the question is being begged.
Leading questions often beg the question. All questions that anticipate a set answer beg the question. “Don’t you agree?” “Doctor, isn’t it true that. . . .” “Wouldn’t you consider it probable that. . . .” “Don’t you think it’s reasonable to suppose. . . .” Sometimes, the question deliberately baits for the desired answer: “You love me, don’t you?” “This wine, which I bought for only three dollars, is great, isn’t it?” “Surely, Herman, you don’t think that this piece of bent crashed automobile is great art?”
Consider this question: “When we have sex, can I be on top?” She is begging to be on top, but what question is she begging? That question is actually two questions. One question asks to be on top. The other begs a question, for it assumes he will have sex with her. That might not be the case and should be discussed beforehand. Before deciding who will be on top, people should discuss whether they will have sex at all. That is the first question, you know.
Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank and of having nothing to do: one or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, “and what is the use of a book,” thought Alice, “without pictures or conversations?”[4]
Alice has already answered the question in her own mind by the form of the question. She doesn’t need to state that answer explicitly, but if she did, she would say, “A book without pictures or conversation is no use at all.”
In court, such questions as Alice’s—questions that presume a certain correct answer or that by implication lead to the answer—are not permitted, and the opposing lawyer (if not sleeping) will object to the “leading” question. A classic example of this is, “Where were you when you saw the headlight broken?”
Objection: Leading. Assumes facts not in evidence. It has not been established that a headlight was broken. At this point, opposing counsel must rephrase the question: “Did you see a broken headlight?”
Here’s another classic example: “Have you left off beating your wife?”
Objection: Leading. Complex question. Assumes facts not in evidence. It has not been established that the defendant beat his wife. If p. 242 the defendant were to answer the question yes or no, by implication he would admit the charge of wife beating.
Principle: Unwarranted or unacceptable assumptions beg the question.
From which follows:
Lesson: Watch out for implicit or unstated assumptions. Typically, although often popular, they are likely to be wrong.
Review
Review this chapter as you did the previous ones. Work out the following:
1. Several years ago, a popular politician switched from the Republican party to the Democratic party, changing the balance of power in the US Senate. The senator came under fire from a number of his critics, especially Republicans.
One argument that some Republicans thought particularly devastating was that the switch indicated that the senator was not a “true-blue” Republican, else he wouldn’t have switched political parties. However, the only evidence cited for his non-“true-blue Republican” status was that he switched parties. His previous voting record was pretty much along Republican party lines.
Any problem with the Republican reasoning here?
My answer: This is a case of question begging. The Republicans are defining a “true-blue” Republican (presumably something good) as someone who would never leave the Republican party. Hence, the only matter that is actually in dispute is whether the definition is an appropriate one; no other factual claim is at issue.
2. Mark says to his nephew Herman, who is a high school senior, ”Where are you going to college next year?” Any question begging here?
Answer: You bet. Uncle Mark is assuming Herman wants to go to college. Actually, Herman wants to join the Navy and see the world.
p. 243 3. “Unless someone wants to add anything further to the discussion of this absurd issue, we will move on to the next topic.” Any question begging here?
Answer: Who said the issue was absurd and why? The form of the statement suggests that the professor is biased against further discussion. Students will take up his offer at their peril because the professor doesn’t want further discussion; he wants to move on.
4. In the Houston Chronicle, March 26, 2002, an article by Kevin Moran described a Marxist who taught American government and applied for tenure. Many opposed. Among those opposed was former Galveston County judge Ray Holbrook, who said: “It seems clear to me that Dr. Smith espouses a subversive anti-capitalist, anti-free enterprise philosophy that I believe is out of place in a public institution of higher learning and is detrimental to the basis of our freedom in this country.”
Problems?
Answer: Judge Holbrook did not say it is clear to me; he said seems. That might mean the judge is not sure of what he speaks. Yet, the way he talks suggests that he knows. Nevertheless, the indefinite seems raises question about whether his view is really correct, since he himself has doubts. Not having had direct contact with Dr. Smith or his course, the judge is in no position to state with certainty what Dr. Smith teaches or doesn’t, much less what Dr. Smith espouses. Therefore, the doubt seems justified.
Marxism is a complex set of doctrines. Which one of those doctrines is subversive? Anti-capitalistic? Anti-free enterprise? Which one of the many Marxist ideas does Judge Holbrook specifically object to and why? And why would expressing contrary views in a higher educational institution be out of place? What place would be more appropriate? If the judge wants such views excluded from higher education, would such views be appropriate to lower education? If so, how low? Grade school? Kindergarten? Preschool? What? Of course, the final irony (and contradiction) is that the judge advocates that the professor be restricted in his freedom to say and do what he wants. The implicit assumption is that such restriction of personal freedom, such restraint and limitation on professors of government, is needed in order to protect and promote freedom in general. The p. 244 judge says that we have a free country but not for professors like Smith, who want to express unpopular ideas. That’s a special pleading. And notice that the judge is making himself the judge of what we are free to say and hear.
Fortunately, reasonable people prevailed. The College of the Mainland board of trustees unanimously voted to grant Dr. Smith tenure, with which Dr. Smith got protection from being fired for his political views. The unanimous decision came after a two-hour public hearing.
“What we just witnessed here was a political rally,” Judge Holbrook yelled at the board.[5] Holbrook, too, shouted out after students who spoke in favor of Dr. Smith. Another fine example of the principle “When the shouting starts, the reasoning stops.”
5. “How did you enjoy the show?” Any begging the question here?
Answer: No doubt. The respondent’s range of reply is limited in scope by the form of the question, which presumes the answer will express some form of enjoyment. More information usually will come from more open-ended questioning: What did you think of the show? Or even better, from letting others answer no question at all by our simply remaining quiet and listening attentively to what they have to say.
If you must ask a question,
ask one that doesn’t presume anything. Hamlet’s “How find you the play, Madam?” is open-ended. It lets Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother, select from the myriad possible responses the one that interested her the most, the one that reflected what was going on in her heart of hearts. Her response was off the point but telling because she never addressed her feelings about the play. Instead, she told Hamlet about what the queen in the play vowed about not remarrying: “The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
6. “The Unicorn thought Alice a fabulous monster.”[6] Any question begging here?
Answer: No doubt, else why would the question be here in this chapter? From the point of view of a unicorn, humans must look pretty funny. It is part of the philosophic dullness of our time that there are millions of rational monsters walking about on their hind legs, observing the world through pairs of flexible little lenses, periodically supplying themselves with energy by pushing organic substances through holes in their faces, who see p. 245 nothing fabulous whatever about themselves but do think birds, cats, and zoo animals are pretty interesting.
7. From Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:
Tied round the neck of the bottle was a paper label, with the words “DRINK ME” beautifully printed on it in large letters. It was all very well to say “Drink me,” but the wise little Alice was not going to do that in a hurry. “No, I’ll look first,” she said, “and see whether it’s marked ‘poison’ or not”; for she had read several nice little stories about children who had got burnt and eaten up by wild beasts and other unpleasant things all because they would not remember the simple rules their friends had taught them: such as, that a red-hot poker will burn you if you hold it too long; and that, if you cut your finger very deeply with a knife, it usually bleeds; and she had never forgotten that, if you drink much from a bottle marked “poison,” it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later.
Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to tell the difference Page 29
