Quote:
|
Petitio Principii or Begging the question - This is a common fallacy wherein your evidence in support of an argument presupposed that you have already accepted the argument, or requires that you have. Example: The case example of begging the question is arguing the validity of the bible using evidence contained within the bible. In order for the evidence to be acceptable, you have to have already concluded that the bible is valid.
|
Tangentially, note that due to the rapid nature of attrition in any theoretical argument you quickly will come to a point where there is a boolean answer based on a need for some evidence to prove the seminal statement for the entire theory, and the only human way to support a stance with this answer is to use the Petitio Principii fallacy, or begging the question, or to intentionally not take a stance based on the lack of evidence.
Essentially any argument using the Petitio Principii fallacy is actually just a convoluted statement. It should be noted that statements aren't really "critical thinking." A statement is any claim that is either true of false, and when we cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, develop a method for determining the truth value of the statement, the statement is therefore not worth discussing, because it is simply just a convoluted discussion in which the only real result is a series of complex and superfluous statements which the content only really contains the ideas of "I agree." or "I disagree."
In general, any statement is not really worth discussing in the realm of "critical thinking" because this forum is about arguments (in the technical sense of the word.) It is not really about illuminating to people the mechanics of arguing, it is for those who already wish to argue, and know how.
To simplify for those who do not have the capacity to grasp what I'm explaining, imagine me saying the following statement:
"The UW is the coolest college in Washington."
This statement may have a truth value, but it does not illuminate the ambiguity of the word "coolest," therefore the only true discussion that can follow is based on individual perceptions of what the word "coolest" means, and there can be no true argument made because you cannot argue against someones personal definition of "coolest," because they believe it's cool simply because they believe it's cool. These types of things do not beget arguments, they beget discussion, and this forum infers that it is for arguments, not statements and loosely associated claims.
Essentially what I'm trying to say is that there really is nothing critical about discussing topics such as God, infinity, Eternity, or really any purely philosophical belief. This forum is not the "post-modern feel-goodery club" or the "comparative religion club." The stickies are quite clear about the intent of the forum. To make arguments within a belief set with the determination that everyone arguing will assume statements A, B, and C for arguments sake of statements D, E, and F clearly does not fall under the Petitio Principii problem, as clarification for those who might not think critically about what I said.