Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence.
منابع مشابه
Begging the Question and Bayesians
In a recent article Patrick Maher shows that the ‘depragmatised’ form of Dutch Book arguments for Bayesianism tend to beg the question against their most interesting anti-Bayesian opponents. I argue that the same criticism can be levelled at Maher’s own argument for Bayesianism. The arguments for Bayesianism in the literature fall into three broad categories. There are Dutch Book arguments, bot...
متن کاملValidation and Validation of Testimony of Anonymous Instances in the Criminal Procedure Code of Iran and Statute of the International Criminal Court
One of the measures taken to protect witnesses in the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Code of Judicial Procedure of our country is to keep their identities secret. Both the defendant is important and the defendant's right can not be ignored for the sake of witness testimony or the defendant's defense rights were endangered and threatened without regard to witness safety. Reg...
متن کاملCircular Arguments, Begging the Question and the Formalization of Argument Strength
Recently Oaksford and Hahn (2004) proposed a Bayesian reconstruction of a classic argumentation fallacy Locke’s ‘argument from ignorance.’ Here this account is extended to what is probably the most well-known of all argumentation fallacies: circular reasoning or ‘begging the question’. A Bayesian analysis is shown to clarify when and where circular reasoning is good or bad, and how seeming para...
متن کاملFailure to enforce the number in testimony on sexual offenses "Critique of the last part of Article 200 of the Penal Code approved in 1392"
Despite the fact that martyrdom in jurisprudence is a clear example of the Shari'a and in the law of the subject is considered as evidence to prove the claim; However, according to considerations such as caution in diseases and ailments, the wise shari'ah has considered it necessary to have a special quorum of witnesses in proving some sexual crimes (four male witnesses). The implication of thi...
متن کاملEvidence and argument in policymaking: development of workplace smoking legislation
BACKGROUND We sought to identify factors that affect the passage of public health legislation by examining the use of arguments, particularly arguments presenting research evidence, in legislative debates regarding workplace smoking restrictions. METHODS We conducted a case-study based content analysis of legislative materials used in the development of six state workplace smoking laws, inclu...
متن کامل