Re:High-Speed Traders Are Taking Over Bitcoin
by Chris2048 on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @09:50AM
(#13426643)
I'm not sure that is the definition, I believe it's: to make a conclusion based on a premise that has no more support than the conclusion.
i.e to introduce a premise begging to be questioned - that includes, of course, the assumption of a conclusion, (isn't that a different fallacy though? - circular reasoning) e.g.:
> bitcoin is profitable, because bitcoin traders are doing well
It pushes the argument somewhere (sometimes to a new claim; sometimes a consequence-of, or paraphrasing-of the original claim) but provides no argument for that direction either, begging for the new premise to be question just as much as the old, and otherwise providing no new clarity.
This being abstracted to any obvious omission of information, or even abstractions such as situations themselves "begging the question" as if personified, is just an extension of the same semantics.
i.e to introduce a premise begging to be questioned - that includes, of course, the assumption of a conclusion, (isn't that a different fallacy though? - circular reasoning) e.g.:
> bitcoin is profitable, because bitcoin traders are doing well
It pushes the argument somewhere (sometimes to a new claim; sometimes a consequence-of, or paraphrasing-of the original claim) but provides no argument for that direction either, begging for the new premise to be question just as much as the old, and otherwise providing no new clarity.
This being abstracted to any obvious omission of information, or even abstractions such as situations themselves "begging the question" as if personified, is just an extension of the same semantics.