Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies

Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies ~ Begging the Question


Contents

  • How to Use This Guide
  • Search
  • Privacy and Security
  • Contact
  • Home Page
  • All Fallacies
  • The Fallacies

  • False Dilemma
  • Argument From Ignorance
  • Slippery Slope
  • Complex Question
  • Appeal to Force
  • Appeal to Pity
  • Appeal to Consequences
  • Prejudicial Language
  • Appeal to Popularity
  • Anonymous Authorities
  • Coincidental Correlation
  • Attacking the Person
  • Appeal to Authority
  • Converse Accident
  • Style Over Substance
  • Unrepresentative Sample
  • Hasty Generalization
  • False Analogy
  • Slothful Induction
  • Fallacy of Exclusion
  • Accident
  • Joint Effect
  • Genuine but Insignificant Cause
  • Wrong Direction
  • Complex Cause
  • Begging the Question
  • Irrelevant Conclusion
  • Straw Man
  • Equivocation
  • Amphiboly
  • Accent
  • Composition
  • Division
  • Affirming the Consequent
  • Denying the Antecedent
  • Inconsistency
  • Fallacy of Four Terms
  • Undistributed Middle
  • Illicit Major
  • Illicit Minor
  • Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
  • Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise
  • Existential Fallacy
  • Subverted Support
  • Non-Support
  • Untestability
  • Limited Scope
  • Limited Depth
  • Too Broad
  • Too Narrow
  • Begging the Question

    petitio principii

    Category:

    Definition: The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

    Examples:

    Proof:

    The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.

    Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true. (Barker: 159, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 144, Copi and Cohen: 102, Davis: 33)


    Created by Stephen Downes, Copyright 2023 CC By-NC-SA