Unimportant 'Language Missuses' 2: Mother May II

[halfeye]

A slightly weird one: "begging the question".

Using "begging the question" to refer to the logical fallacy relies on obscure meanings of the words. It's not really wrong because you can use the phrase this way and be understood -- but you're using the language in a way that abandons common sense for no benefit.

This one's particularly weird because I think I may be more likely to be more irritated when people get this more right.

Actually, I am the opposite, when I hear or see "begging the question" and it isn't the logical fallacy, that really irritates me.

It's a name that accurately describes what's happening in the case of the logical fallacy, and it was almosd only used for that until relatively recently, but then ignorant people heard it used for it's proper purpose and misunderstood what was being said, and wanting to use long words without bothering to learn what they mean, misused them. Claiming that ignorant misuse isn't misuse if everybody does it is silly. Language depends on people understanding what other people are saying, if you use the wrong words, other people will rightly think you mean something you don't want them to think you mean.

[veti]

Claiming that ignorant misuse isn't misuse if everybody does it is silly. Language depends on people understanding what other people are saying, if you use the wrong words, other people will rightly think you mean something you don't want them to think you mean.

But if enough people use "the wrong words", then an intelligent listener will be aware that the meaning is not the same as it was. And thus the "understood" meaning - which, as you seem to accept, is the only meaning that matters - will have changed.

But somehow this feels like a very familiar argument, and I feel reasonably sure you must have heard it before.

[Fyraltari]

Actually, I am the opposite, when I hear or see "begging the question" and it isn't the logical fallacy, that really irritates me.

That's your prerogative.

and wanting to use long words without bothering to learn what they mean, misused them.

"Begging the question" is exactly as long as "raising the question" and not higher vocabulary.

Claiming that ignorant misuse isn't misuse if everybody does it is silly. Language depends on people understanding what other people are saying, if you use the wrong words, other people will rightly think you mean something you don't want them to think you mean.

If everybody does then it isn't misuse, because if everybody does it then that's how the language evolved.

[lesser_minion]

Actually, I am the opposite, when I hear or see "begging the question" and it isn't the logical fallacy, that really irritates me.

(snip)

It's true that the phrase may only be a thing in the first place because of people using it for the logical fallacy. But that still doesn't mean that it's the people using it to mean what they expect it to mean who are in the wrong. They don't have any reason to believe that they're using it in any way other than how a reasonable person would expect it to be used.

Additionally, I would suggest that it's more likely that people started using it with its modern meaning specifically because it doesn't look like "long words". The modern meaning fits quite well with the words used.

I also don't think, were I to respond to someone's argument with "this begs the question", that there would be many people who aren't wondering what question is being begged (in general, I don't like to refer to logical fallacies by name, because people very frequently use them in a way that gives the impression that they're expecting someone to stop the debate and dock their opponent ten points or something).

[halfeye]

It's true that the phrase may only be a thing in the first place because of people using it for the logical fallacy. But that still doesn't mean that it's the people using it to mean what they expect it to mean who are in the wrong. They don't have any reason to believe that they're using it in any way other than how a reasonable person would expect it to be used.

However, they're using a phrase they don't understand. Another one that sometimes comes up is "Eminence gris". It sounds as if it might mean grey face, perhaps implying shadowy background figures, but what it actually means is someone whose job is to keep an important person's appointments diary, and the person keeping the appointment diary makes a profit out of selling connections to the important person without the important person being officially aware that they're doing that.

Additionally, I would suggest that it's more likely that people started using it with its modern meaning specifically because it doesn't look like "long words". The modern meaning fits quite well with the words used.

It's a phrase. It has a particular meaning. Using it without that meaning sounds clever to the ignorant, but it really, really isn't.

I also don't think, were I to respond to someone's argument with "this begs the question", that there would be many people who aren't wondering what question is being begged (in general, I don't like to refer to logical fallacies by name, because people very frequently use them in a way that gives the impression that they're expecting someone to stop the debate and dock their opponent ten points or something).

The reason people act as if logical fallacies are bad arguments, is because they are bad arguments. If you are begging the the question, you are talking non-sense. The reason begging the question is excentionally bad, is because on the surface it sounds persuasive, but it's actually nonsense.

That's your prerogative.

Darn skippy.

If everybody does then it isn't misuse, because if everybody does it then that's how the language evolved.

Language can grow, or it can shrink. Abuse of phrases like "begging the question" are cases of the language shrinking. I'm in favour of the language growing, and of redundancy (more different ways of saying things). When phrases with clear meanings are lost, or when old words get new uses without losing their old ones, then the language shrinks and becomes harder to use.

[Willie the Duck]

Actually, I am the opposite, when I hear or see "begging the question" and it isn't the logical fallacy, that really irritates me.

It's a name that accurately describes what's happening in the case of the logical fallacy, and it was almosd only used for that until relatively recently, but then ignorant people heard it used for it's proper purpose and misunderstood what was being said, and wanting to use long words without bothering to learn what they mean, misused them.

However, they're using a phrase they don't understand. Another one that sometimes comes up is "Eminence gris". It sounds as if it might mean grey face, perhaps implying shadowy background figures, but what it actually means is someone whose job is to keep an important person's appointments diary, and the person keeping the appointment diary makes a profit out of selling connections to the important person without the important person being officially aware that they're doing that.

It's a phrase. It has a particular meaning. Using it without that meaning sounds clever to the ignorant, but it really, really isn't.

I think this perspective is perhaps a little overly tuned towards the assumption that the actions of others is done with the purpose of unjustifiably thinking highly of themselves. I've really not seen evidence for that in the greater world of people using the English language. So far as I can tell, people who use 'that begs the question' to mean something along the lines of, 'that suggests/implies/evokes the question' do so because they believe it to be a correct usage of the term, either due to ignorance of the original meaning, or (as evidenced on this thread) perhaps ceding the term to it's modern usage as a lost battle. I don't think I've ever seen someone use it as a form of 'trying to sound smart' because I don't think anyone thinks that it makes one sound smart. Certainly not people unaware of its original meaning (and those people who are aware certainly would not be impressed with misusing it/using it in the only-recently-deemed-(possibly)-acceptable form). There doesn't seem to be a set of people for whom the misuse of the term would be an impressive act, such that anyone would ever use it to be impressive.

The reason people act as if logical fallacies are bad arguments, is because they are bad arguments. If you are begging the the question, you are talking non-sense. The reason begging the question is excentionally bad, is because on the surface it sounds persuasive, but it's actually nonsense.

I think you are misunderstanding lesser_minion's point. It is the people throwing around the accusation of committing a logical fallacy that they are trying not to be, because they feel those are the people who still think they are in high school debate. While the formalized logical fallacies are genuine argumentation mistakes, and pointing them out in the logical argumentation of others is a plausible way of showing that perhaps someone else's argument isn't as thought-out as they think, declaring someone else's argument to be a fallacy also often seems to be done by people who only think they have a rock solid argument and why doesn't everyone else see it?, or at least those of us who frequent the internet have all met that guy at one point or another.

[Fyraltari]

However, they're using a phrase they don't understand. Another one that sometimes comes up is "Eminence gris". It sounds as if it might mean grey face, perhaps implying shadowy background figures, but what it actually means is someone whose job is to keep an important person's appointments diary, and the person keeping the appointment diary makes a profit out of selling connections to the important person without the important person being officially aware that they're doing that.

If you insist on using expressions to mean what they originally mean, then you are wrong. An "Éminence grise" is indeed a shadowy decison maker.

It's a phrase. It has a particular meaning. Using it without that meaning sounds clever to the ignorant, but it really, really isn't.

Nobody is using it to sound clever, it's a very common turn of phrase.

Language can grow, or it can shrink. Abuse of phrases like "begging the question" are cases of the language shrinking. I'm in favour of the language growing, and of redundancy (more different ways of saying things). When phrases with clear meanings are lost, or when old words get new uses without losing their old ones, then the language shrinks and becomes harder to use.

A language with less synonyms is not harder to use (if anything it's probably simpler what with having less words to memorize). You may prefer languages that have a larger width of vocabulary but that does not make them objectively better. Mistakes is one of the most prominent ways languages evolve, get over it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

when old words get new uses without losing their old ones, then the language shrinks and becomes harder to use.

TIL that a word going from one meaning to two is an indication of a language shrinking.

Wait, no I didn't. Because that makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it begs the question.

Grey Wolf

[lesser_minion]

The reason people act as if logical fallacies are bad arguments, is because they are bad arguments. If you are begging the the question, you are talking non-sense. The reason begging the question is excentionally bad, is because on the surface it sounds persuasive, but it's actually nonsense.

There's a difference between thinking of logical fallacies as kinds of argument you need to watch out for because they look better than they really are, and thinking of them as magical trap cards that instantly win you the debate if their conditions are met. There's not actually much need to mention a logical fallacy by name in an argument, and I don't think it's uncommon for people who do so to be thinking more along the lines of "trap card".

[halfeye]

There's a difference between thinking of logical fallacies as kinds of argument you need to watch out for because they look better than they really are, and thinking of them as magical trap cards that instantly win you the debate if their conditions are met.

The point about logical fallacies is that they only happen if you are arguing illogically. So yes it's a trap an argument can drive into, and if you drive into it you have invalidated your argument. Logic is basically arithmentic for language, if you've generated a logical fallacy, you've argued something that's similar to, but usually a lot more complex than, saying that 2 + 2 = 5 (maybe more like 250 + 249 is exactly = 500).

There's not actually much need to mention a logical fallacy by name in an argument, and I don't think it's uncommon for people who do so to be thinking more along the lines of "trap card".

Right, but it's a legitimate trap by the rules of argument, and if you've triggered it, your argument is mistaken. It may be that you misspoke due to ignorance of the rules of argument, but ignorance is not immunity, and if your argument is inherently illogical (that is, if the basic structure of it is illogical, rather than some phrase of it being badly worded by mistake), then people shouldn't agree with you because you are wrong.

Most of the time we don't need to go deeply into logic (and it's as deep as maths if you really want to dive in), but being aware of the basics is essential if you have any interest in arguing, like being aware of basic arithmetic is necessary to shopping.

[georgie_leech]

For a productive discussion though, it's usually a better idea to just explain what's wrong with the argument. Just saying "that's a fallacy" doesn't actually do anything to steer the discussion back into logical territory. I mean, if they're doing it accidentally, they're apparently not aware of what the fallacy is. If they're intentionally arguing fallaciously, they're not arguing in good faith to begin with and probably won't stop just because you point it out.

Just saying "begging the question" or "strawman" isn't going to convince them to change their mind.

[lesser_minion]

Right, but it's a legitimate trap by the rules of argument, and if you've triggered it, your argument is mistaken. It may be that you misspoke due to ignorance of the rules of argument, but ignorance is not immunity, and if your argument is inherently illogical (that is, if the basic structure of it is illogical, rather than some phrase of it being badly worded by mistake), then people shouldn't agree with you because you are wrong.

If I'm pointing out a flaw in someone's reasoning, I don't want them to hear "therefore you're wrong and I'm smarter than you QED". Yet that's precisely what I'd expect them to hear if I throw the name of a logical fallacy in their face, especially if I don't even bother to explain how they've committed the fallacy in this context and then show how that undermines their argument.

And if an opponent is in full "someone is wrong on the internet" mode and writing 600 paragraph arguments with 432 independent lines of reasoning, you're probably better off just being honest and throwing a TL;DR at them (or, better, politely commending them for their effort) than going on a hunt for logical fallacies to use against them.

[veti]

The point about logical fallacies is that they only happen if you are arguing illogically. So yes it's a trap an argument can drive into, and if you drive into it you have invalidated your argument.

No, you have argued illogically. Logic is not the only form of argument. If your goal is to persuade others of your case, logic is one of the weakest tools around. (Chiefly because of my favourite fallacy, the is/ought problem.)

Most of the time we don't need to go deeply into logic (and it's as deep as maths if you really want to dive in), but being aware of the basics is essential if you have any interest in arguing, like being aware of basic arithmetic is necessary to shopping.

Logic is the science of philosophy, not argument. If you are arguing in pursuit of Truth, then logic is your friend - but almost nobody does that. If you are arguing in pursuit of agreement or approval, on the other hand, you would do better to study rhetoric.

[Bohandas]

Re. "begging the question" I would argue that, from a purely lingusitic standpoint, the logical fallacy is the less correct use of the phrase. This is because that sense of the phrase cannot be arrived at from the meanings of the individual words. The other "to raise an issue" meaning is, conversely, obvious from the words in the phrase (albeit a littke sloppy due to omitting the word "for")

[Wardog]

If I'm pointing out a flaw in someone's reasoning, I don't want them to hear "therefore you're wrong and I'm smarter than you QED". Yet that's precisely what I'd expect them to hear if I throw the name of a logical fallacy in their face, especially if I don't even bother to explain how they've committed the fallacy in this context and then show how that undermines their argument.

On top of that, often when I see people calling out fallacy names to counter people's arguments, I don't think they have actually understood the argument being made.

For example, slippery slopes. When I see someone arguing against something on the grounds that it is a slippery slope, the essence of their argument is usually "x is bad, because it enables and/or increases the risk of bad thing y". To counter such an argument, I suggest you would have to show that the link between x and y is weak or nonexistant, or that there are good safeguards in place against y happening, or that y isn't actually bad. But just dismissing it with a shout of "Slippery slope fallacy!" is not going to convince them, because it has failed to understand and counter their actual argument.

[Vinyadan]

On top of that, often when I see people calling out fallacy names to counter people's arguments, I don't think they have actually understood the argument being made.

For example, slippery slopes. When I see someone arguing against something on the grounds that it is a slippery slope, the essence of their argument is usually "x is bad, because it enables and/or increases the risk of bad thing y". To counter such an argument, I suggest you would have to show that the link between x and y is weak or nonexistant, or that there are good safeguards in place against y happening, or that y isn't actually bad. But just dismissing it with a shout of "Slippery slope fallacy!" is not going to convince them, because it has failed to understand and counter their actual argument.

Yes, my general experience with invoking fallacies is that the invoker is either misunderstanding what the speaker is saying, or he is trying to invalidate what the speaker said because of assumptions about his inner being, or the invoker simply doesn't know what that fallacy is.

Which I guess is why I have never seen anyone use them in real life. Fallacies are hard. They require both good comprehension skills and previous knowledge. And there's also that certain fallacies miss the point. "Killing people is wrong, so lynching Rohirrim is wrong" may be a fallacy in theory, but in practice it gets the relevant message through: if the Rohirrim are people, you can't special-case killing them just because they are Rohirrim, so you should stop the lynching.

[Willie the Duck]

The point about logical fallacies is that they only happen if you are arguing illogically. So yes it's a trap an argument can drive into, and if you drive into it you have invalidated your argument. Logic is basically arithmentic for language, if you've generated a logical fallacy, you've argued something that's similar to, but usually a lot more complex than, saying that 2 + 2 = 5 (maybe more like 250 + 249 is exactly = 500).

Logic is (something very different from, but within the context of this discussion, approximates) arithmetic for language. Calling out supposed logical fallacies in online internet discussion is not the same thing. It is more akin to (if others' experience is similar to mine) the first refuge of people incapable of actually forming an argument sufficient to convince others*.
*and how could anyone disagree with them, they are being 100% perfectly logical, this opposition must be some mamby-pampy post modernist claptrap lover who doesn't understand the pure supremacy of logic (nevermind that it hasn't been successfully argued).

In the absolutely pure case that someone has mistakenly made an argument that logically reduces to 2+2=5, then yes, pointing out the failure in logic would absolutely be the appropriate response. This doesn't happen much, and for the most part, when people think their opponent has made such a mind-bogglingly ridiculous logic mistake, they are usually mistaken.

For a productive discussion though, it's usually a better idea to just explain what's wrong with the argument. Just saying "that's a fallacy" doesn't actually do anything to steer the discussion back into logical territory. I mean, if they're doing it accidentally, they're apparently not aware of what the fallacy is. If they're intentionally arguing fallaciously, they're not arguing in good faith to begin with and probably won't stop just because you point it out.

Just saying "begging the question" or "strawman" isn't going to convince them to change their mind.

That's the difference between winning at high school debate (although that also requires some power of convincing, exactly when 'proving to myself how right I am' really is beneficial is hard to quantify), and actually changing minds.

[halfeye]

That's the difference between winning at high school debate (although that also requires some power of convincing, exactly when 'proving to myself how right I am' really is beneficial is hard to quantify), and actually changing minds.

I remember someone (Dawkins?) recounting a conversation they had with a member of a debating team who said they preferred to debate in support of an idea they believe is wrong, which the person reporting the conversation thought was a totally inappropriate attitude, and I agree that that attitude is utterly inappropriate.

[Fyraltari]

It’s perfectly possible to both explain the error in logic and name it. Indeed it generally helps to explain it. Fallacies are tricky things and it is very easy to commit some without realizing it. Happens to me often. The only fallacy I don’t bother giving an explanation to is the strawman because
1) that’s a well-known term and
2) it is the sign of someone who is not interested in making conversation.

That being said, one must stay wary of the Fallacy Fallacy: a reasoning ring fallacious does not mean its conclusions are wrong and before disproving somebody’s position one should care to prove theirs.

[Bohandas]

For example, slippery slopes. When I see someone arguing against something on the grounds that it is a slippery slope, the essence of their argument is usually "x is bad, because it enables and/or increases the risk of bad thing y". To counter such an argument, I suggest you would have to show that the link between x and y is weak or nonexistant, or that there are good safeguards in place against y happening, or that y isn't actually bad. But just dismissing it with a shout of "Slippery slope fallacy!" is not going to convince them, because it has failed to understand and counter their actual argument.

The issue here is that they don't understand the fallacy, and in this case have basically imagined one that doesn't exist. The slippery slope is a class of arguments that can be either fallacious or not and that at its core simply states that causes are followed by effects (which is true in any situation not involving either a bootstrap paradox or indeterminacy)

[lesser_minion]

The issue here is that they don't understand the fallacy, and in this case have basically imagined one that doesn't exist. The slippery slope is a class of arguments that can be either fallacious or not and that at its core simply states that causes are followed by effects (which is true in any situation not involving either a bootstrap paradox or indeterminacy)

That's one of the reasons why I'd expect any attempt to call out a logical fallacy to show how the reasoning complained of commits the fallacy, and how that undermines the overall argument.

Another reason is that if they genuinely didn't notice the fallacy, then they're going to need it pointed out to them properly anyway.

A third reason is that RPG forums have a handful of bonus 'fallacies' that were only fully explained in ancient forum posts on boards that don't exist, meaning that unless you were both on the internet and playing tabletop games 15 to 17 years ago, you're going to need them explained to you anyway.

[Wardog]

The only fallacy I don’t bother giving an explanation to is the strawman because
1) that’s a well-known term and
2) it is the sign of someone who is not interested in making conversation.

Or that they've misunderstood your argument (or you've misunderstood their criticisms of your argument).

[Fyraltari]

Or that they've misunderstood your argument (or you've misunderstood their criticisms of your argument).

When someone misunderstands somebody’s point as something ridiculous, they ask as in ‘‘do you really mean that it would be moral to sacrifice babies to Ahriman? Because that can’t be right’’ or some such.

When they simply state that the ridiculous thing is what you’ve been plain and simple, they are strawmanning.


Alternatively, they think you are a moron.

[Bohandas]

A third reason is that RPG forums have a handful of bonus 'fallacies' that were only fully explained in ancient forum posts on boards that don't exist, meaning that unless you were both on the internet and playing tabletop games 15 to 17 years ago, you're going to need them explained to you anyway.

Some of them are actually relevant to non-RPG discussions as well. I've seen people commit the Oberoni Fallacy in plenty of civics discussions, claiming things like "such-and-such law isn't actually unjust because the police and courts don't enforce it strictly"

[Bohandas]

I would like to restate my contention that "begging the question" is a poorer turn of phrase when used in the sense of the logical fallacy than it is when used otherwise. The name of the logical fallacy is purely idiomatic, based on a mistranslation of the latin phrase "petitio principii", which according to wikipedia actually means something closer to "assuming the initial point", which is a much more accurate description of the fallacy. "begging the question" on the other hand is little more than word salad as far as the fallacy is concerned; it can be seen clearly enough how they got it from "petitio principii" but if you don't already know what it means it means nothing. Conversely its meaning is relatively clear when used to mean "raise a question" as in this case kt is simply missing the word "for" ("begs for the question").

[halfeye]

I would like to restate my contention that "begging the question" is a poorer turn of phrase when used in the sense of the logical fallacy than it is when used otherwise. The name of the logical fallacy is purely idiomatic, based on a mistranslation of the latin phrase "petitio principii", which according to wikipedia actually means something closer to "assuming the initial point", which is a much more accurate description of the fallacy. "begging the question" on the other hand is little more than word salad as far as the fallacy is concerned; it can be seen clearly enough how they got it from "petitio principii" but if you don't already know what it means it means nothing. Conversely its meaning is relatively clear when used to mean "raise a question" as in this case kt is simply missing the word "for" ("begs for the question").

I strongly disagree.

[Willie the Duck]

"begging the question" on the other hand is little more than word salad as far as the fallacy is concerned; it can be seen clearly enough how they got it from "petitio principii" but if you don't already know what it means it means nothing. Conversely its meaning is relatively clear when used to mean "raise a question" as in this case kt is simply missing the word "for" ("begs for the question").

Sure, begging the question as a contraction/slight word omission version of 'begs for the question' makes sense in a modern framing, but 'begs the question as in 'beggaring the question' as in impoverishing the question part of the equation by assuming the answer in the answer absolutely makes sense. It's not a competition and they both can be accurate/appropriate at the same time. Neither of them are really a natural feeling phrase, but both work with explanation.

[Bohandas]

Sure, begging the question as a contraction/slight word omission version of 'begs for the question' makes sense in a modern framing, but 'begs the question as in 'beggaring the question' as in impoverishing the question part of the equation by assuming the answer in the answer absolutely makes sense. It's not a competition and they both can be accurate/appropriate at the same time. Neither of them are really a natural feeling phrase, but both work with explanation.

I doubt that's the real explanation though. The impression I got was that it meant they were asking ("begging") for their conclusion to be included as one of the initial assumptions

[Fyraltari]

I doubt that's the real explanation though. The impression I got was that it meant they were asking ("begging") for their conclusion to be included as one of the initial assumptions

No, somebody just got their Latin wrong and everyone rolled with it. Happens surprisingly often.

[Peelee]

No, somebody just got their Latin wrong and everyone rolled with it. Happens surprisingly often.

The only correct language is early homonid grunting sounds.