Jump to content

Loaded question: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
This is not an example of a loaded question; such a question must contain an inherent assumption on the part of the questioner, not just an accusation towards the person being questioned
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:


Such questions may be used as a [[rhetoric]]al tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.<ref name=Walton/> The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having beaten their wife at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are ''[[presupposed]]'' by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the [[fallacy of many questions]] has been committed.<ref name=Walton/> The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question [[fallacious]]. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.<ref name=Walton/> Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.<ref name=Walton>Douglas N. Walton, ''Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentation'', Cambridge University Press, 1989, {{ISBN|0-521-37925-3}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=kswimguc5uYC&dq=%22complex+question%22+%22Loaded+question%22&pg=PA36 pp. 36–37]</ref>
Such questions may be used as a [[rhetoric]]al tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.<ref name=Walton/> The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having beaten their wife at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are ''[[presupposed]]'' by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the [[fallacy of many questions]] has been committed.<ref name=Walton/> The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question [[fallacious]]. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.<ref name=Walton/> Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.<ref name=Walton>Douglas N. Walton, ''Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentation'', Cambridge University Press, 1989, {{ISBN|0-521-37925-3}}, [https://books.google.com/books?id=kswimguc5uYC&dq=%22complex+question%22+%22Loaded+question%22&pg=PA36 pp. 36–37]</ref>

This [[informal fallacy]] should be distinguished from that of [[begging the question]],<ref name=begging>{{cite web |title=Fallacy: Begging the Question |publisher=The Nizkor Project |url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html |access-date=January 22, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190310182956/http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html |archive-date=March 10, 2019}}</ref> which offers a [[premise]] whose plausibility depends on the truth of the [[proposition]] asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.<ref name=SD>{{cite book |last=Carroll |first=Robert Todd |author-link=Robert Todd Carroll |date=31 July 2003 |title=The Skeptic's Dictionary |publisher=[[John Wiley & Sons]] |isbn=0-471-27242-6 |page=51 |url=http://skepdic.com/begging.html}}</ref>
This [[informal fallacy]] should be distinguished from that of [[begging the question]],<ref name=begging>{{cite web |title=Fallacy: Begging the Question |publisher=The Nizkor Project |url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html |access-date=January 22, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190310182956/http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html |archive-date=March 10, 2019}}</ref> which offers a [[premise]] whose plausibility depends on the truth of the [[proposition]] asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.<ref name=SD>{{cite book |last=Carroll |first=Robert Todd |author-link=Robert Todd Carroll |date=31 July 2003 |title=The Skeptic's Dictionary |publisher=[[John Wiley & Sons]] |isbn=0-471-27242-6 |page=51 |url=http://skepdic.com/begging.html}}</ref>


Revision as of 01:04, 11 May 2023

A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having beaten their wife at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.[2] This informal fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question,[3] which offers a premise whose plausibility depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.[4]

Defense

A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife".[5] This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker may respond to a challenge by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question.

An alternative manner of answering involves the Buddhist word mu, meaning "Neither yes nor no". This was illustrated in a story titled "Looking for Kelly Dahl":[6][unreliable source?]

"Mu," said Kelly Dahl.
On one level mu means only yes, but on a deeper level of Zen it was often used by the master when the acolyte asked a stupid, unanswerable or wrongheaded question such as "Does a dog have the Buddha-nature?" The Master would answer only, "Mu," meaning—I say "yes" but mean "no," but the actual answer is: Unask the question.

Historical examples

Diogenes Laërtius wrote a brief biography of the philosopher Menedemus in which he relates that:[7]

[O]nce when Alexinus asked him whether he had left off beating his father, he said, "I have not beaten him, and I have not left off;" and when he said further that he ought to put an end to the doubt by answering explicitly yes or no, "It would be absurd," he rejoined, "to comply with your conditions, when I can stop you at the entrance."[8]

For another example, the 2009 referendum on corporal punishment in New Zealand asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Murray Edridge, of Barnardos New Zealand, criticized the question as "loaded and ambiguous" and claimed "the question presupposes that smacking is a part of good parental correction".[9]

See also

References

  1. ^ Bassham, Gregory (2004). Critical Thinking. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780072879599.
  2. ^ a b c d Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentation, Cambridge University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-521-37925-3, pp. 36–37
  3. ^ "Fallacy: Begging the Question". The Nizkor Project. Archived from the original on March 10, 2019. Retrieved January 22, 2008.
  4. ^ Carroll, Robert Todd (31 July 2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary. John Wiley & Sons. p. 51. ISBN 0-471-27242-6.
  5. ^ Layman, C. Stephen (2003). The Power of Logic. p. 158.
  6. ^ 1996, Dan Simmons, "Looking for Kelly Dahl", The Year's Best Science Fiction, page 424
  7. ^ Walton, Douglas N. (November 1999). "The fallacy of many questions: on the notions of complexity, loadedness and unfair entrapment in interrogative theory" (PDF). Argumentation. 13 (4): 379–383. doi:10.1023/A:1007727929716. S2CID 141720470. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-12-21. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
  8. ^ Laertius, Diogenes (1853). The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Yonge, Charles Duke. London: H.G. Bohn. p. 109. OCLC 3123020.
  9. ^ "Anti-smacking debate goes to referendum". 3 News. June 15, 2009. Retrieved 2010-02-03.[permanent dead link‍]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loaded_question&oldid=1154217136"