AIUI, in begging the question a questionable proposition is slipped under the radar by putting it in the premise of some other argument. In circular reasoning, the silliness is taken a step farther, by using the conclusion of an argument to support its own buried premise.
T-Rex seems to disagree, though; the way he defines it, it’s only begging the question if the thing being proven is itself in the premises, whereas I use Wikipedia’s broader definition of “when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.”
Assume as an axiom that being always friggin’ awesome implies being a pretty sweet dude, and also that the stated premises of the arguments are true:
Example 1: Premise: No one ever questions T-Rex’s perpetual friggin’ awesomeness. Conclusion: Therefore, we know that he’s a pretty sweet dude.
Problem: Begging the question. There is an unspoken premise that T-Rex is always friggin’ awesome. If the argument stated outright that “because nobody questions T-Rex’s perpetual friggin’ awesomeness, therefore he’s always friggin’ awesome”, the flaw would be obvious. So it leaves this premise unsaid.
Example 2: Premise: No one ever questions T-Rex’s perpetual friggin’ awesomeness, and he’s also a pretty sweet dude. Conclusion: T-Rex is always friggin’ awesome.
Problem: Circular reasoning. The argument requires that being a pretty sweet dude implies being always friggin’ awesome, which isn’t the case. It tries to hide this problem by begging its own conclusion.
Note that even if it were the case that being a pretty sweet dude implies being always friggin’ awesome, the argument would still be kind of broken: the unquestioned friggin’ awesomeness is unnecessary. Unneeded premises are a sign of an argument that’s not well thought out.
AIUI, in begging the question a questionable proposition is slipped under the radar by putting it in the premise of some other argument. In circular reasoning, the silliness is taken a step farther, by using the conclusion of an argument to support its own buried premise.
T-Rex seems to disagree, though; the way he defines it, it’s only begging the question if the thing being proven is itself in the premises, whereas I use Wikipedia’s broader definition of “when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.”
Assume as an axiom that being always friggin’ awesome implies being a pretty sweet dude, and also that the stated premises of the arguments are true:
Example 1: Premise: No one ever questions T-Rex’s perpetual friggin’ awesomeness. Conclusion: Therefore, we know that he’s a pretty sweet dude.
Problem: Begging the question. There is an unspoken premise that T-Rex is always friggin’ awesome. If the argument stated outright that “because nobody questions T-Rex’s perpetual friggin’ awesomeness, therefore he’s always friggin’ awesome”, the flaw would be obvious. So it leaves this premise unsaid.
Example 2: Premise: No one ever questions T-Rex’s perpetual friggin’ awesomeness, and he’s also a pretty sweet dude. Conclusion: T-Rex is always friggin’ awesome.
Problem: Circular reasoning. The argument requires that being a pretty sweet dude implies being always friggin’ awesome, which isn’t the case. It tries to hide this problem by begging its own conclusion.
Note that even if it were the case that being a pretty sweet dude implies being always friggin’ awesome, the argument would still be kind of broken: the unquestioned friggin’ awesomeness is unnecessary. Unneeded premises are a sign of an argument that’s not well thought out.