Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

All conception arguments beg the question?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 10:09:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?

Well, not much isn't the circular lol Take the English language for instance, it is finite, thus the defined terms loop back around and thus all languages beg the question. Take logic itself. To justify logic, is to presuppose logic, which begs the question.

This is why we have axioms.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 10:15:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?

Also, your argument is like saying that I cannot say "the speaker plays music and thus can make sound" without begging the question, because to say the speaker plays music assumes it can make sound already!

This seems absurd, no?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 8:32:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 10:15:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?

Also, your argument is like saying that I cannot say "the speaker plays music and thus can make sound" without begging the question, because to say the speaker plays music assumes it can make sound already!

This seems absurd, no?

Yes, I agree, it does seem rather absurd. But if it's the case that sometimes circular reasoning is inevitable, and isn't invalid, then what sort of circular reasoning is?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 11:35:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 8:32:51 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:15:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?

Also, your argument is like saying that I cannot say "the speaker plays music and thus can make sound" without begging the question, because to say the speaker plays music assumes it can make sound already!

This seems absurd, no?

Yes, I agree, it does seem rather absurd. But if it's the case that sometimes circular reasoning is inevitable, and isn't invalid, then what sort of circular reasoning is?

I suppose it applies to what which is non-fundamental to reason and what not. However, I don't even think what you are saying is a case of circular reasoning. X can linearly entail Y, and Y can linearly entail X (like a two way street). That doesn't mean there is question begging. For example, if a fundamental mind exists, then it follows linearly that God exists. If God exists, then it follows linearly that a fundamental mind exists. You don't actually have to assume one side of the equation to prove it.

Therefore, I don't see how what you are presenting is really circular reasoning.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 11:58:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 11:35:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/15/2014 8:32:51 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:15:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?

Also, your argument is like saying that I cannot say "the speaker plays music and thus can make sound" without begging the question, because to say the speaker plays music assumes it can make sound already!

This seems absurd, no?

Yes, I agree, it does seem rather absurd. But if it's the case that sometimes circular reasoning is inevitable, and isn't invalid, then what sort of circular reasoning is?

I suppose it applies to what which is non-fundamental to reason and what not. However, I don't even think what you are saying is a case of circular reasoning. X can linearly entail Y, and Y can linearly entail X (like a two way street). That doesn't mean there is question begging. For example, if a fundamental mind exists, then it follows linearly that God exists. If God exists, then it follows linearly that a fundamental mind exists. You don't actually have to assume one side of the equation to prove it.

Therefore, I don't see how what you are presenting is really circular reasoning.

But I'm arguing that since I can conceive of something, then it's metaphysically possible. But saying I can conceive of something assumes that it's metaphysically possible in the first place, which is what I'm trying to prove. So my premises are only true of my conclusion is true. And my conclusion is known to be true because of my premises.

B, therefore A.

But B is only true if A is true....
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 12:00:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 11:58:14 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/15/2014 11:35:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/15/2014 8:32:51 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:15:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?

Also, your argument is like saying that I cannot say "the speaker plays music and thus can make sound" without begging the question, because to say the speaker plays music assumes it can make sound already!

This seems absurd, no?

Yes, I agree, it does seem rather absurd. But if it's the case that sometimes circular reasoning is inevitable, and isn't invalid, then what sort of circular reasoning is?

I suppose it applies to what which is non-fundamental to reason and what not. However, I don't even think what you are saying is a case of circular reasoning. X can linearly entail Y, and Y can linearly entail X (like a two way street). That doesn't mean there is question begging. For example, if a fundamental mind exists, then it follows linearly that God exists. If God exists, then it follows linearly that a fundamental mind exists. You don't actually have to assume one side of the equation to prove it.

Therefore, I don't see how what you are presenting is really circular reasoning.

But I'm arguing that since I can conceive of something, then it's metaphysically possible.

So?

But saying I can conceive of something assumes that it's metaphysically possible in the first place, which is what I'm trying to prove.

Not it doesn't. Where do you get that from? lol

So my premises are only true of my conclusion is true. And my conclusion is known to be true because of my premises.

B, therefore A.

But B is only true if A is true....
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 12:03:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The fact that you conceive of it just lets you know it is possible (at least prima facie possible), it doesn't presuppose it. It is sort of like how hearing a dog bark, lets me know that a dog is barking, but that doesn't mean that hearing a dog bark already presupposes a dog is barking, therefore, I am begging the question lol

Do you think this begs the question?

"I hear a dog barking, therefore, a dog is barking"
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 12:05:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 12:00:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/15/2014 11:58:14 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/15/2014 11:35:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/15/2014 8:32:51 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:15:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?

Also, your argument is like saying that I cannot say "the speaker plays music and thus can make sound" without begging the question, because to say the speaker plays music assumes it can make sound already!

This seems absurd, no?

Yes, I agree, it does seem rather absurd. But if it's the case that sometimes circular reasoning is inevitable, and isn't invalid, then what sort of circular reasoning is?

I suppose it applies to what which is non-fundamental to reason and what not. However, I don't even think what you are saying is a case of circular reasoning. X can linearly entail Y, and Y can linearly entail X (like a two way street). That doesn't mean there is question begging. For example, if a fundamental mind exists, then it follows linearly that God exists. If God exists, then it follows linearly that a fundamental mind exists. You don't actually have to assume one side of the equation to prove it.

Therefore, I don't see how what you are presenting is really circular reasoning.

But I'm arguing that since I can conceive of something, then it's metaphysically possible.

So?

But saying I can conceive of something assumes that it's metaphysically possible in the first place, which is what I'm trying to prove.

Not it doesn't. Where do you get that from? lol


Because if it were metaphysically impossible, I wouldn't be able to conceive of it. So saying I can conceive of something is only true if that which I am conceiving is metaphysically possible to begin with.

Another interesting question...

We can't conceive of square circles for example. Some would argue that since we can't conceive of this, then it's metaphysically impossible. But couldn't our inability of conceiving things be due to our lack of imagination of mental capacity? I mean retarded kids might not be able to conceive or understand alot of things, but they're still possible.

So it doesn't seem that we can say that since something is inconceivable, then it's metaphysically impossible.

So my premises are only true of my conclusion is true. And my conclusion is known to be true because of my premises.

B, therefore A.

But B is only true if A is true....
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 12:12:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 12:05:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/15/2014 12:00:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/15/2014 11:58:14 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/15/2014 11:35:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/15/2014 8:32:51 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:15:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?

Also, your argument is like saying that I cannot say "the speaker plays music and thus can make sound" without begging the question, because to say the speaker plays music assumes it can make sound already!

This seems absurd, no?

Yes, I agree, it does seem rather absurd. But if it's the case that sometimes circular reasoning is inevitable, and isn't invalid, then what sort of circular reasoning is?

I suppose it applies to what which is non-fundamental to reason and what not. However, I don't even think what you are saying is a case of circular reasoning. X can linearly entail Y, and Y can linearly entail X (like a two way street). That doesn't mean there is question begging. For example, if a fundamental mind exists, then it follows linearly that God exists. If God exists, then it follows linearly that a fundamental mind exists. You don't actually have to assume one side of the equation to prove it.

Therefore, I don't see how what you are presenting is really circular reasoning.

But I'm arguing that since I can conceive of something, then it's metaphysically possible.

So?

But saying I can conceive of something assumes that it's metaphysically possible in the first place, which is what I'm trying to prove.

Not it doesn't. Where do you get that from? lol


Because if it were metaphysically impossible, I wouldn't be able to conceive of it.

If the dog wasn't barking, I couldn't hear the dog barking. It is still not circular reasoning to say "I heard the dog bark, therefore, a dog is barking".

So saying I can conceive of something is only true if that which I am conceiving is metaphysically possible to begin with.

Umm no.


Another interesting question...

We can't conceive of square circles for example. Some would argue that since we can't conceive of this, then it's metaphysically impossible. But couldn't our inability of conceiving things be due to our lack of imagination of mental capacity? I mean retarded kids might not be able to conceive or understand alot of things, but they're still possible.

So it doesn't seem that we can say that since something is inconceivable, then it's metaphysically impossible.

So my premises are only true of my conclusion is true. And my conclusion is known to be true because of my premises.

B, therefore A.

But B is only true if A is true....
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 12:40:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To me, if it begs the question, then so does:

"I made something go faster than the speed of light, therefore, it is possible for something to go faster than the speed of light"

What if someone said:

"But to say you made something go faster than the speed of light assumes it is possible already!"

This is just odd reasoning to me you are putting forward...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 2:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Person 1: "Craig, can you check to see if my speaker can make any noise?"

Person 2: "I just did. I heard sounds coming from the speaker, therefore, the speaker can make noise."

Person 1: "The problem is that to say you heard sounds coming from the speaker presupposes that the speaker can make noise already. Therefore, your statement is circular reasoning and invalid."

Person 2: "What?! Have you gone mad!"
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 1:54:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 9:39:01 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Do all arguments which try to show metaphysical possibility from conceiving something beg the question?

Let's say I don't know if it's metaphysically possible for it to snow tomorrow.

I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow, so it must be metaphysically possible.

But wouldn't saying "I can conceive of it snowing tomorrow" mean that it is metaphysically possible? If it weren't metaphysically possible in the first place, I couldn't conceive of it. But isn't the metaphysical possibility what I'm trying to prove? Doesn't saying "I can conceive of x" presuppose that x is metaphysically possible, and thus beg the question?

No, it doesn't begs the question nor it's circular reasoning. Problem for why it's seeming to you so, is a missing premise. It must be so to form an argument, like:

All that is metaphysically possible is conceivable/ or all that is conceivable is metaphysically possible (premise 1) and I can conceive of snowing tomorrow (premise 2) , thus snowing tomorrow is metaphysically possible (conclusion).

Circular reasoning is logical fallacy when the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement, thus it is a fallacy. But here in our example; conclusion depends upon the truth of BOTH of the premises, even if premise 2 assumes the premise 1, premise 2 has to proved first, thus making it not a circular reasoning nor a fallacious one.

I suppose my question could also be... Is circular reasoning always fallacious? What exactly qualifies as fallacious circular reasoning then?

Circular reasoning starts from where we want to end it up, it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. So in structuring an argument it's always called a FALLACY thus is fallacious. Anyhow, the context of a dialogue is important to note, we use circular reasoning in our informal routine and we're used to only believe in this fallacy confidingly.

Examples
I can hear if dog barks, so dog is barking. / Dog is barking because I can hear sounds. (lacking evidence for baking of dog)
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~