Logical Fallacies 16: Begging the Question or Assuming the Answer

Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io9NnSMa3Po&feature=watch_response

            There used to be a show on television I was a big fan of called “America’s Dumbest Criminals.”  In one episode, a couple law-enforcement personnel had in custody someone they suspected as the culprit in a recent robbery.  But they didn’t have evidence that would stand up in court.  So while they had the fellow in cuffs and were filling out paperwork, they made arrangements to bring the victim by and asked her if she could identify the suspect.

            She couldn’t, but then they asked the suspect if this was the woman he had robbed.  He took a look and said that she was.

            Now think about that.  What if they had directed that question to someone innocent?  What would he have said?  Probably something along the lines of, “What are you talking about?  I didn’t rob her or anybody.”  This would be the reply of someone innocent, or someone sharp.  Apparently, this fellow was neither, so when they got him on tape saying this, it was a confession which paved the way for a conviction.

            What this fellow was on guard for was a question about his guilt; not a question which assumed his guilt.  He was not prepared for a question with an endemic assumption.

            Inherent assumptions are a thing one really has to watch for.  Consider when Robin Williams talks about the luge.  He asks, “What drunken German gynecologist invented that sport?”  Because of its built-in assumptions, this is an allegation in question’s clothing; the allegation being that this sport is so strange that, surely, only a German gynecologist in a state of inebriation could possibly have dreamed it up.

            Now consider the following:

            “We must be hard on crime to hold down the crime rate.”

            The inherent assumption here is that the crime rate is in fact lower than it would be if one were soft on crime.  Is there any evidence that such an approach actually has this effect?  I know, it seems like it ought to, but what if it doesn’t?  Then you’re just being hard on people to no end.  You’re just being a jackass.

            This is the unstated assumption.  It could also be called the unstated premise.  In and of itself, it’s not necessarily a logical fallacy if the unmentioned premise is well founded.  The problem is that, if it’s not well founded, such may go unnoticed and there we have a breakdown in reasoning.  Usually, this kind of endemic flaw is found in questions and this fallacy is known as “begging the question” or “assuming the answer.”  Sometimes it’s also called a “loaded question.”  As I understand it, and I may very well be mistaken, in a legal context, it is known as a “leading question.”

            In my video in which I discussed “argument from the gaps,” I mentioned a girl I knew a very long time ago when I was young who heard about the death of our dog and immediately demanded to know who had killed him.  Now when one asks, “Who this?” “Who that?” what is one asking?  One is asking “What willful being?” in philosophical terms, “What agent?”  This being the case, one cannot use this word (who) without assuming an agent.

            The question, “How did the dogs get out?” assumes only a process, while the question, “Who let the dogs out?” assumes an agent and a process.  Maybe something heavy just fell on part of the fence and broke it, letting the dogs out.  If that’s the case, then one has no reason to concern oneself with considerations like motive.  But if one slips automatically into “who” mode and assumes an agent, one is lead to the question, “Who in the world would want to let the dogs out?”  If no one actually has a reason to want such a thing, if no one has a motive, then you can’t determine how the dogs got out without escaping this assumption, which first depends on recognizing that you are making this assumption.

            Now consider the following:

            Q: Who created the Universe?”

            In other words, “What agent created the Universe?”  This question assumes both that an agent of some kind created the Universe and that the Universe was, in fact, created.  Maybe the Universe has always existed in some form.

            Q: Where did the Universe come from?

            “Where,” as in “What location.”  This question assumes both an origin and a point of origin.  If one’s preferred answer to this question is a god or gods of some sort, then one is trying to answer a “where” with a “who,” and yet again, one is assuming that there was once a time when the Universe did not exist.

            Q: What is the purpose of life?

            What makes you so certain that life needs a purpose?  If it doesn’t have one, if it doesn’t need one, does it stop being life?  Surely not.

            I could probably conceive of other examples, but I have the suspicion that most of you see my point.