Begging the Question or an Appeal to Authority fallacy?

Forums: Begging The Question, Debate, God, Bible, Fallacy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In your opinion, is this an example of a Begging the Question or an Appeal to Authority fallacy? And why?

“The theory of evolution cannot be true. The Bible says the world was created in seven days.
And everything the Bible says is true, because it is the word of God.”

Thanks!!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 6,171 • Replies: 42

@Laurenbehr2014,

The first two appeal to authority.

I suppose the final begs the question in that it assumes the existence of God, which is not in evidence.

1 Reply

@Laurenbehr2014,

I don't consider that a form of debate at all. That's more like knocking the chess board over and saying "I quit, because I want to play a game where I make up the rules".

0 Replies

@Laurenbehr2014,

Laurenbehr2014 wrote:

In your opinion, is this an example of a Begging the Question or an Appeal to Authority fallacy? And why?

“The theory of evolution cannot be true.

In my opinion, begging the question.

Quote:

The Bible says the world was created in seven days.

In my opinion, a statement of fact.

Quote:

And everything the Bible says is true, because it is the word of God.”

In my opinion, eliminate the "and"...and it is begging the question.

0 Replies

@Laurenbehr2014,

Thanks so much for your insight and opinions.

Would it be appeal to authority if it were just the following?
The theory of evolution cannot be true. The Bible says the world was created in seven days.

Any tips/keywords to look our for when it comes to all the different types of fallacies? I feel like I should know this, but seems to complex to understand/get.

thanks again!!

1 Reply

@Laurenbehr2014,

Laurenbehr2014 wrote:

Thanks so much for your insight and opinions.

Would it be appeal to authority if it were just the following?
The theory of evolution cannot be true.

No.

Quote:

The Bible says the world was created in seven days.

The Bible does indeed say that the world was created in seven days. That simply is fact...no fallacy at all.

Quote:

Any tips/keywords to look our for when it comes to all the different types of fallacies? I feel like I should know this, but seems to complex to understand/get.

Look up logical fallacies in Google. They are explained in great detail.

0 Replies

@Laurenbehr2014,

Laurenbehr2014 wrote:

In your opinion, is this an example of a Begging the Question or an Appeal to Authority fallacy?

It's both.

Laurenbehr2014 wrote:

And why?

“The theory of evolution cannot be true. The Bible says the world was created in seven days.

That's an appeal to the authority of the Bible: "The theory of evolution cannot be true because the Bible says so." Were the authors of the Bible in a position to know that? What observations led them to this conclusion? Do other people's observations confirm theirs or contradict them? Were the authors unbiased investigators, or did they have a dog in this fight? None of these questions is discussed. The only putative reason to believe the conclusion is the authority of the Bible. That's an argument from authority.

Laurenbehr2014 wrote:

And everything the Bible says is true, because it is the word of God.”

That's question-begging because the argument's conclusions are part of its assumptions. Argument 1 (explicit): "Everything the Bible says is true because the Bible is the word of God." Argument 2 (not explicitly stated, but necessarily implied): "The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so, and because everything the Bible says is true." That's circular reasoning, or in another word, question-begging.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Laurenbehr2014 wrote:
In your opinion, is this an example of a Begging the Question or an Appeal to Authority fallacy?

It's both.

I agree. Inasmuch as an appeal to authority assumes that the authority is correct, it is, in essence, also a petitio principii (begging the question). Consequently, every appeal to authority also necessarily begs the question.

Thomas wrote:

Laurenbehr2014 wrote:
And everything the Bible says is true, because it is the word of God.”

That's question-begging because the argument's conclusions are part of its assumptions. Argument 1 (explicit): Everything the Bible says is true because the Bible is the word of God. Argument 2 (not explicitly stated, but necessarily implied): The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is, and everything the Bible says is true. That's circular reasoning, or in another word, question-begging.

I'm not so sure I concur on this point. Question begging isn't the same thing as circular reasoning. Rather, it's what lawyers would describe as "assuming a fact not in evidence." What you're describing is a particular form of circular reasoning - bootstrapping - where the argument is not only circular, but which also provides its own support.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Question begging isn't the same thing as circular reasoning. Rather, it's what lawyers would describe as "assuming a fact not in evidence." What you're describing is a particular form of circular reasoning - bootstrapping - where the argument is not only circular, but which also provides its own support.

I see you're a gourmet of logical fallacies. I stand corrected.

0 Replies

Quote:

“The theory of evolution cannot be true. The Bible says the world was created in seven days.

If the period did not exist between the "true" and "The"...what Joe and Thomas said might be correct.

But the statement "The Bible says the world was created in seven days" is a factual statement...a truth. It is neither "begging the question" nor an appeal to authority.

"The theory of evolution cannot be true" is definitely begging the question.

0 Replies

Thank you all for responding.

It is a question in one of our course exercises, and has caused huge debate.I first thought Argumentum ad Verecundiam but then changed to Petitio Principii. So, I thought I'd ask those more in the know than us mere Critical Reasoning students.

How do you, personally, identify which fallacies are which? They seem to like giving us very tricky exercises. I've Googled over and over again, but most information is repeated in other sources, and one struggles to find new examples/information.

1 Reply

@Laurenbehr2014,

Laurenbehr2014 wrote:

How do you, personally, identify which fallacies are which?

I basically do it by analogy. When I read a fallacy in the newspaper op-ed, it triggers a knee-jerk reflex in my mind: "Oh, this is just like when X said ____ . That was a blatant argument to authority." Sometimes, when I distrust my reflex, I double-check with the definition of the fallacy to see if it matches this case. (Wikipedia has a pretty serviceable catalogue. If I ever wanted to go for extra thoroughness, I'd buy a good book about fallacies.) Fallacy-sniffing gets progressively easier the more you practice it. Eventually it becomes an unconscious habit. It's among the perks of being middle-aged.

0 Replies

David Hackett Fischer's Historians' Fallacies is a pretty good introduction to identifying bad arguments, and it's written for non-logicians (historians, actually). Apparently, it's still in print after more than forty years.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I agree. Inasmuch as an appeal to authority assumes that the authority is correct, it is, in essence, also a petitio principii (begging the question). Consequently, every appeal to authority also necessarily begs the question.

Inspired by a post in Paul Krugman's blog today: What do you call an appeal to authority when the authority is correct but does not establish what the author appeals to it to establish? In Paul Ryan's case, I suppose you could just call it "a con", but I'm frequently seeing honestly-mistaken authors do it, too. My question is, does "it" have a name?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Since I don't know what Laurenbehr2014's major is, I'll use this opportunity to hawk the standard work from my corner of academia (natural sciences, math, engineering). The title is Fads and Fallacies in the name of Science by Martin Gardner. Over 60 years old now, the book is still a great consciousness-raiser, and still an entertaining read.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Inspired by a post in Paul Krugman's blog today: What do you call an appeal to authority when the authority is correct but does not establish what the author appeals to it to establish? In Paul Ryan's case, I suppose you could just call it "a con", but I'm frequently seeing honestly-mistaken authors do it, too. My question is, does "it" have a name?

I think Fischer might classify it as a fallacy of substantive distraction. Bentham might class it under the general category of "fallacies of confusion."

0 Replies

@Laurenbehr2014,

both, fact

0 Replies

@Laurenbehr2014,

You forgot the straw man.
The Bible does not say the world was created in seven days.
In fact the stated days are of indeterminate as Genesis 2:4 would indicate.

BTW, There is no indication the seventh day has ever ended.

0 Replies

Quote:

“The theory of evolution cannot be true. The Bible says the world was created in seven days.
And everything the Bible says is true, because it is the word of God.”

A theory is just a collection of guesses and hunches and ideas, so that's what the theory of evolution is.
If scientists are so certain it's true why don't they call it The Fact of Evolution?.. Smile

0 Replies

@roger,

I agree that it is an appeal to authority, and Christians should never use that form of argumentation (sadly, many do). But I don't think an appeal to God is begging the question. To state that God is not in evidence is begging the question as well, so either or is question begging. The point in this little exercise, in my view would be to make sure that all arguments appeal to reason - not to evidence. The use of evidence also has to appeal to reason. So I would say that at the top of the order here is reason's rules - non-contradiction, identity and excluded middle. Appeals to authority are fallacys because they discount reason's rules for a more popular form of argumentation that says because somone said do, and that someone is always true, it must be true. We must first show reasonably that the someone in quesstion is always true. God by definition is always true, or he wouldn't be God. But we have to reasonably demonstrate that the bible is his word. I think there are ways of doing just that within reason.

1 Reply

Forums
» Begging the Question or an Appeal to Authority fallacy?

Read Discussion
Reply to All

Begging the Question or an Appeal to Authority fallacy?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know