What exactly does “begging the question” mean and where did the phrase come from?
Or, less directly, basing your argument on a premise that’s just as questionable as the thing you’re trying to prove. For example, “Telepathy doesn’t exist because it’s impossible to read another person’s thoughts.” The conclusion (telepathy doesn’t exist) is equivalent to the premise (it’s impossible to read thoughts). The argument only works if you assume the premise is true, but the premise is exactly what you’re arguing about. Another example: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must find the defendant guilty, because he has shown no remorse for his crime.” The premise here, that the defendant has shown no remorse, is only meaningful if you assume he’s guilty. If he isn’t guilty, he has no reason to show remorse. Finally: “Super Mario Brothers 3 was the best game in the series, because it has the best characters.” Here the premise isn’t literally repeating the conclusion, but it’s just as debatable as the conclusion. This argument doesn’t prove anything; it simply shifts the que
