Comment on Peter of Spain, Jim Mackenzie and begging the question (Q1802399)
From MaRDI portal
scientific article
Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
---|---|---|---|
English | Comment on Peter of Spain, Jim Mackenzie and begging the question |
scientific article |
Statements
Comment on Peter of Spain, Jim Mackenzie and begging the question (English)
0 references
19 August 1993
0 references
This paper claims to detect a failure in the reviewer's ``Confirmation of a conjecture of Peter of Spain concerning question-begging arguments'' [J. Philos. Logic 13, 35-45 (1984; Zbl 0538.03002)], namely that it does not classify the argument \(\underline x/\therefore\underline y\) as question-begging where \(\underline x=\underline z\& \underline y\), where \(\underline x\) is a universalisation of which \(\underline y\) is an instance, or where \(\underline x\) presupposes \(\underline y\). Indeed it doesn't. They only beg the question if \(\underline x\) is not defended in turn without appealing to \(\underline y\). An example of the conjunctive case in which this is plausible is defending ``April has only thirty days'' by replying ``Thirty days hath September, April, June, and November'', which is in turn defended by appeal to the authority of one's Third-Year teacher [the reviewer, ``Why do we number theorems?'', Austral. J. Philos. 58, 135-149 (1980), p. 140; cf. \textit{R. Sorensen}, `` ``\(\underline P\), therefore \(\underline P\)'' without circularity'', J. Philos. 88, 245-266 (1991), pp. 250 n.]. It is pleasing that the pace of this debate has picked up from 7 centuries to 9 years between moves.
0 references
dialogue
0 references
fallacies
0 references
question-begging
0 references