Korean Journal of Logic (논리연구)

Korean Association for Logic (한국논리학회)
권호 표지

Why Is Begging the Question a Fallacy?: the Purpose of Arguments and Evaluations of Begging the Question

선결문제 요구의 오류는 왜 오류인가?: 논증의 목적과 선결문제 요구의 오류 평가

  • Sunwoo, Hwan (Department of Philosophy, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2016.04.09
  • Accepted : 2016.06.13
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In order to explain why begging the question is a fallacy, some of the challenges must be met. First we need to understand what begging the question is in subtle ways. In addition, it is necessary to reflect on the nature and the purpose of arguments in order to explain why begging the question is a fallacy. In this paper, I first have a general proposal about the main purpose of arguments. Then I place my own multi-layered theory of begging the question proposed in a previous study in the context of the proposals in this paper for the main purpose of arguments. Moreover, I develop a more comprehensive theory of why begging the question is a fallacy. Finally, I examine and criticize the main previous theories of begging the question, such as Frank Jackson's theory, Douglas Walton's theory, David Sanford's theory, John Biro's theory.

선결문제 요구의 오류가 왜 오류라고 할 수 있는지를 설명하기 위해서는 몇 가지 과제가 해결되어야 한다. 우선 우리는 선결문제 요구의 오류가 무엇인지를 섬세한 방식으로 이해하고 규명할 필요가 있다. 또한 그렇게 이해된 선결문제 요구의 오류가 왜 오류인지에 대해 설명하기 위해서는 논증 자체의 본성과 목적에 대해 성찰해야 할 필요가 있다. 이 논문에서 필자는 우선 논증의 주된 목적이 무엇인가에 대해 일반적 제안을 한 후에, 선결문제 요구의 오류를 이해하고 규정하기 위해서 이전 논문에서 제시했었던 다층적 이론을 논증 자체의 주된 목적에 대한 이 논문의 제안의 맥락속에 자리 잡게 해서, 그로부터 선결문제 요구의 오류가 왜 잘못이고 오류인지에 대한 설명들을 이끌어내기 위한 논의를 전개한다. 그리고 선결문제 요구의 오류가 어떻게 이해되어야 하는가, 그리고 그것이 왜 오류인가의 문제에 대한 기존의 주요 이론들-잭슨(F. Jackson), 월튼(D. Walton), 샌포드(D. Sanford), 바이로(J. Biro)의 이론들-을 검토하고 그 기존 이론들이 어떤 문제점들을 지니는지에 대해 비판적 고찰을 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박준호 (2011), "선결문제요구와 논증평가론" 범한철학, 61, pp. 275-298.
  2. 선우환 (2010), "선결문제 요구의 오류를 어떻게 규정할 것인가?" 철학, 104, pp. 185-214.
  3. 최훈 (2011), "선결문제 요구의 오류: 인식론적 접근 옹호" 범한철학, 63, pp. 277-305.
  4. Biro, John (1977), "Rescuing 'Begging the Question'", Metaphilosophy, 8, pp. 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1977.tb00281.x
  5. Biro, John (1984), "Knowability, Believability and Begging the Question", Metaphilosophy, 15, pp. 239-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1984.tb00658.x
  6. Biro, John and Siegel, Harvey (2006), "In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation", Informal Logic, 26, pp. 91-101.
  7. Copi, Irving & Cohen, Carl, (1998), Introduction to Logic 10E. New York: Macmillan.
  8. Damer, T. E. (1980), Attacking Faulty Reasoning, Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  9. Eemeren, Frans H. van & Grootendorst, Rob, (1992), Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  10. Goldman Alvin I. (2003), "An Epistemological Approach to Argumentation", Informal Logic, 23, pp. 51-63.
  11. Hamblin, Charles Leonard, (1970), Fallacies, London: Methuen.
  12. Hansen, Hans V. and Pinto, Roberst C. (eds.) (1995), Fallacies, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  13. Jackson, Frank (1987), Conditionals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper (2001), "Are Question-Begging Arguments Necessariy Unreasonable?", Philosophical Studies, 104, pp. 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010346727863
  15. Lumer, Christoph (2005), "The Epistemological Theory of Argument-How and Why?". Informal Logic, 25, pp. 213-243.
  16. Mill, J. S. (1867/2002), A System of Logic, University Press of the Pacific.
  17. Moore, G. E. (1959), "Proof of an External World" Philosophical Papers (London: Allen and Unwin).
  18. Pinto, Robert C. (2001), Argument, Inference and Dialectic, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  19. Powers, Lawrence (1995), "The One Fallacy Theory", Informal Logic, 17, pp. 303-314.
  20. Robinson, Richard (1971), "Begging the Question", Analysis, 31, pp. 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/31.4.113
  21. Sanford, David (1972), "Begging the Question", Analysis, 32, pp. 197-199. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/32.6.197
  22. Sanford, David (1981), "Superfluous Information, Epistemic Conditions of Inference and Begging the Question", Metaphilosophy, 12, pp. 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1981.tb00034.x
  23. Sanford, David (1988), "Begging the Question as Involving Actual Belief and Inconceivable without it ", Metaphilosophy, 19, pp. 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1988.tb00699.x
  24. Sorensen, Roy A. (1991), "'P, Therefore, P' Without Circularity," The Journal of Philosophy, 91, pp. 245-266.
  25. Sorensen, Roy A (1996), "Unbegging Questions", Analysis, 56, pp. 51-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/56.1.51
  26. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (1999), "Begging the Question", Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77, pp. 174-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048409912348921
  27. Walton, Douglas N., (1987), Informal Fallacies, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  28. Walton, Douglas N., (1989), Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Walton, Douglas N., (1991), Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation, New York: Greenwood
  30. Walton, Douglas N., (1995a), "The Essential Ingredients of the Fallacy of Begging the Question", in Hansen and Pinto (1995).
  31. Walton, Douglas N., (1995b), A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacies, Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.
  32. Walton, Douglas N., (2004), Relevance in Argumentation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  33. Walton, Douglas N., (2006), "Epistemic and Dialectic Models of Begging the Question", Synthese 152, pp. 237-284.
  34. Woods, John, Andrew Irvine, and Douglas N. Walton, (2000), Argument: Critical Thinking, Logic and the Fallacies, Toronto: Prentice Hall.