A clarification regarding "begging the question": circular reasoning is an obvious version of begging the question, but the same dynamic is at work in both fallacies. What distinguishes the two is that, when one begs the question, typically the assumptions are unstated. This makes it more difficult to detect, particularly when you happen to agree with those underlying assumptions. For instance, on NPR a couple weeks ago, Cokie Roberts was talking about the Democrats' chances in the upcoming election, and warned them: "If you don't have security, you don't have anything." (or words to that effect) What does this assume? For one, it assumes a certain understanding of security which doesn't include things such as "job security," or decent public education, or health care: it only focuses on future potential terrorist attacks. And secondly, it assumes that Republicans have in some sense made us more secure at least in that sense, which it seems they haven't--unless increasing the number of terrorists through misguided neo-colonial invasions counts as making us more secure.
On a completely different subject: I'm always struck by how different motivations can manifest in the same behavior. This isn't earth-shattering news, but I think it's interesting, and a good check on assuming that we know what's going on with other people. I'm tempted to go into more detail, but as luck would have it, I have real work to do this morning!
No comments:
Post a Comment