Английская Википедия:Complex question
Шаблон:Short description A complex question, trick question, multiple question, fallacy of presupposition, or Шаблон:Lang (Latin, 'of many questions') is a question that has a complex presupposition. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when they give any direct answer. When a presupposition includes an admission of wrongdoing, it is called a "loaded question" and is a form of entrapment in legal trials or debates. The presupposition is called "complex" if it is a conjunctive proposition, a disjunctive proposition, or a conditional proposition. It could also be another type of proposition that contains some logical connective in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.[1]
Complex questions can but do not have to be fallacious, as in being an informal fallacy.[1]
Complex question fallacy
Шаблон:More The complex question fallacy, or many questions fallacy, is context dependent; a presupposition by itself does not have to be a fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.[1][2][3][4][5] For example, "Is Mary wearing a blue or a red dress?" might be fallacious because it artificially restricts the possible responses to a blue or red dress, when in fact Mary might be wearing a different coloured dress, or trousers, or a skirt. If the person being questioned would not necessarily consent to those constraints, the question is fallacious.[1][3][4][5]
Hence we can distinguish between:
- legitimately complex question (not a fallacy): a question that assumes something that the hearer would readily agree to. For example, "Who is the monarch of the United Kingdom?" assumes that there is a place called the United Kingdom and that it has a monarch, both true.
- illegitimately complex question: "Who is the King of France?" would commit the complex question fallacy because while it assumes there is a place called France (true), it also assumes France currently has a king (false). But since answering this question does not seem to incriminate or otherwise embarrass the speaker, it is complex but not really a loaded question.[6]
When a complex question contains controversial presuppositions (often with loaded language—having an unspoken and often emotive implication), it is known as a loaded question.[2][3][5] For example, a classic loaded question, containing incriminating assumptions that the questioned persons seem to admit to if they answer the questions instead of challenging them, is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If the person questioned answers "yes", that implies that they have previously beaten their wife. A loaded question may be asked to trick the respondent into admitting something that the questioner believes to be true, and which may in fact be true. So the previous question is "loaded", whether or not the respondent has actually beaten their wife–and if the respondent answers anything other than "yes" or "no" in an attempt to deny having beaten their wife, the questioner can accuse them of "trying to dodge the question". The very same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded were it asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted having beaten one's wife.[3]
Similar questions and fallacies
A similar fallacy is the double-barreled question. It is committed when someone asks a question that touches upon more than one issue, yet allows only for one answer.[7][8][9]
This fallacy can be also confused with Шаблон:Lang (begging the question),[10] which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion.[11]
See also
Notes
External links
- ↑ 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 2,0 2,1 Michel Meyer, Questions and questioning, Walter de Gruyter, 1988, Шаблон:ISBN, Google Print, p. 198–199
- ↑ 3,0 3,1 3,2 3,3 Douglas N. Walton, Fundamentals of critical argumentation, Cambridge University Press, 2006, Шаблон:ISBN, Google Print, p. 194–196
- ↑ 4,0 4,1 Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentation, Cambridge University Press, 1989, Шаблон:ISBN, Google Print, p. 36–37
- ↑ 5,0 5,1 5,2 Douglas N. Walton. Witness testimony evidence: argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law, Cambridge University Press, 2008, Шаблон:ISBN, Google Print, p. 329
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Response bias Шаблон:Webarchive. SuperSurvey, Ipathia Inc.
- ↑ Earl R. Babbie, Lucia Benaquisto, Fundamentals of Social Research, Cengage Learning, 2009, Google Print, p. 251
- ↑ Alan Bryman, Emma Bell, Business research methods, Oxford University Press, 2007, Шаблон:ISBN, Google Print, p. 267–268
- ↑ Fallacy: Begging the Question Шаблон:Webarchive The Nizkor Project. Retrieved on: January 22, 2008
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
