Talk:Loaded question

I don't understand the proposal to merge. Can somebody explain it? --KayEss 19:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu made a mistake. Please see this link for the difference between Plurium interrogationum and Trivial objections. --Viriditas 07:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't put this article on my watchlist. I thought the two were the same. I could have been wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Implied form

I don't tink this is really the same fallacy, but have given in to pressure to put it here. Suggestions for a better article name would be appreciated. (It was previously in an article named Asking the question.) StuRat 21:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

If the person answers no, then, according to logic, they are not admitting they have beaten their wife. If they never did it they can hardly have stopped. I call for a rephrasing of that sentence so that it does not state illogic as fact. (The actual content is fine though. Just rephrase the sentence.)

This has been corrected. Mrtea (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, we're still begging the question: There is an implication that one is married. I suppose I've always had an 'objection' to this [a classic example].

"Have you stopped beating" is by far a more common phrasing than "are you still beating" (+65K non-WP Ghits, vs barely 900). The AYS phrasing, it can be argued, suffers from the same weakness as the HYS phrasing - if I never beat my wife, then I can hardly still be beating her. That's the whole point: this is a fallacy. It doesn't have to obey strict logic. If it did, it wouldn't be a fallacy. DS 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That change violates the official Wikipedia policy of no original research. It also makes the example more confusing, which you tacitly admit by adding an explanation to compensate for the complexity of the example. I'm reverting the change, and removing the uncited assertion that it's the standard example. -- Schapel 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to clarify why using Google hits to justify the claim that an example is "the standard example" is considered original research.

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

The results of a Google search are not published data. They are the results of an experiment that someone thought of to determine which statement is found more on the Internet. Further, the number of Google hits is interpreted as meaning that the example with more hits is the standard example. Both using unpublished data, and making a new interpretation of data, are specifically listed as doing original research. If you find a reliable source that makes the direct statement "The standard example is..." and cite that source, that's not original research, but citing your sources. -- Schapel 11:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do your parents know that you're homosexual?

To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Do your parents know that you're homosexual?" would be "I am not a homosexual".

Not sure about this sentence. I think it should be qualified somewhat that responder is indeed not homosexual, and perhaps also that the interrogator is indeed a prankster (although I do see that this is stated above). Otherwise this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask of a homosexual and the context in which is is used here could be construed as slightly derogatory. There is an implication that there is some shame in being homosexual. StraussianNeocon 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are correct, however I thought that would be qualified by referring to the earlier example. Would 'a good response to the prank question' be an acceptable alternative, or would it still be too open for misinterpretation? InvalidAntonym 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both examples (about homosexuals and about wifebeaters) presuppose that the person being asked feels strongly about not confirming that he (she?) is in the designated group. Whether he is in the group or not is actually irrelevant. The word "homophobic" was removed from the homosexuality example recently, but I don't think we should write the article in such a way that it only makes sense if you take homophobia for granted; I think one can claim that is what we do now.--Niels Ø 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairies in woods example - and the lead generally

I've deleted this material from the lead, but I place it here in case someone wants to work with it or restore it, or whatever: "For example, the statement that walking in the woods alone at night is unwise because fairies are likely to bewitch unsuspecting individuals presupposes that fairies exist — a dubious proposition."

I think this is a very confusing example - it is not a question, and it is not even (without a lot more context) an example of circular reasoning or begging the question. There are much better examples both here i the lead and later on in the article. IMHO, the article is clearer and stronger without this particular example in the lead. Metamagician3000 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now reworked the lead generally. I believe that the explanation is now more accurate and more correctly explains the relationship with the fallacy of begging the question. Metamagician3000 11:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe MacCarthy paragraph

I don't understand why this is given as an example of a loaded question. It has been prety much proven that Alger Hiss was at least a communist, and very likely a spy. Where is the loading? Dullfig 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The loading occurs more in the later parts. E.g.:

Frank Coe has been named under oath before Congressional committees seven times as a member of the Communist Party. Why?

Clearly, this question has been phrased to make any direct answer look bad, and herein lies the loading. (How this kind of thing should be countered is left as an exercise. (-: ) Bi 11:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fallacies?

What is the non-fallacies section? It is not explained. The section contains the question "have you stopped beating your wife?", yet the intro to the article states that "are you still beating your wife?" is a loaded question - unless I'm wrong to not see the difference between the phrasings, I don't see what the non-fallacy section is trying to prove and I still don't see how "does your mom know that you're gay?" is not just as loaded as any question listed in the fallacy section TheHYPO 10:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can God create a rock so big that he can not lift it?

I think this is a bad example, because the question is not unanswerable nor truly loaded. Presupposing for the sake of answering this question that God is an omnipotent being:

Being omnipotent, there is no limit to the amount of force he has available to lift any rock.

Any rock, in order to exist, must be created of a finite mass.

If God has an infinite amount of force available to apply to any finite amount of mass, then he can lift it.

So then the answer is "no." Any rock of finite mass that God creates could not possibly be beyond his ability to lift if he has an infinite amount of force to exert upon it. Even being omnipotent, God would be limited to create a rock of a finite mass. Ironically the reason why he can't create a rock so big that he can not lift it is because his power is NOT limited, not because it IS. (Conversely the answer would actually be "yes" for any non-omnipotent being!)

I decided to remove this as an example of this fallacy, because it isn't really.75.70.125.3 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]