Loaded question: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:12, 21 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[edit]

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.

Historical examples[edit]

Diogenes Laërtius wrote a brief biography of the philosopher Menedemus in which he relates that:^[6]

[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."^[7]

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".^[8]

References[edit]

^ Bassham, Gregory (2004). Critical Thinking. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780072879599.
^ ^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
^ "Fallacy: Begging the Question". The Nizkor Project. Archived from the original on March 10, 2019. Retrieved January 22, 2008.
^ Carroll, Robert Todd (31 July 2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary. John Wiley & Sons. p. 51. ISBN 0-471-27242-6.
^ Layman, C. Stephen (2003). The Power of Logic. p. 158.
^ 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.
^ Laertius, Diogenes (1853). The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Yonge, Charles Duke. London: H.G. Bohn. p. 109. OCLC 3123020.
^ "Anti-smacking debate goes to referendum". 3 News. June 15, 2009. Retrieved 2010-02-03.^{[permanent dead link]}

External links[edit]

Fallacy: Loaded Questions and Complex Claims Critical Thinking exercises. San Jose State University.
Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question The Fallacy Files
What Is The Loaded Question Fallacy? Definition and Examples Fallacy in Logic

[1] Bassham, Gregory (2004). Critical Thinking. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780072879599.

[Walton-2] Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentation, Cambridge University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-521-37925-3, pp. 36–37

[begging-3] "Fallacy: Begging the Question". The Nizkor Project. Archived from the original on March 10, 2019. Retrieved January 22, 2008.

[SD-4] Carroll, Robert Todd (31 July 2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary. John Wiley & Sons. p. 51. ISBN 0-471-27242-6.

[POL-5] Layman, C. Stephen (2003). The Power of Logic. p. 158.

[6] 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.

[7] Laertius, Diogenes (1853). The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Yonge, Charles Duke. London: H.G. Bohn. p. 109. OCLC 3123020.

[8] "Anti-smacking debate goes to referendum". 3 News. June 15, 2009. Retrieved 2010-02-03.^{[permanent dead link]}

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{short description|Question containing an unjustified assumption}}
+{{Short description|Question containing an unjustified assumption}}
-A '''loaded question''' or '''complex question''' is a [[question]] that contains a controversial or unjustified [[Tacit assumption|assumption]] (e.g., a presumption of guilt).<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rBkD0HQJvnsC |title=Critical Thinking |first=Gregory |last=Bassham |publisher=[[McGraw-Hill]] |year=2004 |isbn=9780072879599}}</ref>
+A '''loaded question''' is a form of  [[complex question]] that contains a controversial [[Tacit assumption|assumption]] (e.g., a [[presumption of guilt]]).<ref>{{cite book |last=Bassham |first=Gregory |year=2004 |title=Critical Thinking |publisher=[[McGraw-Hill]] |isbn=9780072879599 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rBkD0HQJvnsC }}</ref>
-Aside from being an [[informal fallacy]] depending on usage, 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, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her 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&pg=PA36&dq=%22complex+question%22+%22Loaded+question%22&as_brr=0&ei=P820S9GbFI20MPOqiOkO&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22complex%20question%22%20%22Loaded%20question%22&f=false 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 fallacy should be distinguished from that of [[begging the question]],<ref name=begging>{{cite web |url=http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html |title=Fallacy: Begging the Question |publisher=The Nizkor Project |accessdate=January 22, 2008}}</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 |url=http://skepdic.com/begging.html |title=The Skeptic's Dictionary |first=Robert Todd |last=Carroll |ISBN=0-471-27242-6 |publisher=[[John Wiley & Sons]] |authorlink= Robert Todd Carroll |page=51 }}</ref>
 ==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".<ref name=POL>{{cite book |title =The Power of Logic | first =C. Stephen | last =Layman | year= 2003 | page=158 }}</ref> This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of [[question dodging|dodging the question]].
+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".<ref name=POL>{{cite book |last=Layman |first=C. Stephen |year=2003 |title=The Power of Logic |page=158}}</ref> 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 [[question dodging|dodging the question]].
 ==Historical examples==
+[[Diogenes Laërtius]] wrote a brief biography of the philosopher [[Menedemus]] in which he relates that:<ref>{{cite journal |last=Walton |first=Douglas N. |author-link=Douglas N. Walton |date=November 1999 |title=The fallacy of many questions: on the notions of complexity, loadedness and unfair entrapment in interrogative theory |journal=Argumentation |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=379–383 |doi=10.1023/A:1007727929716 |s2cid=141720470 |url=http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/99interrog.pdf |access-date=2020-04-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181221135816/http://dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/99interrog.pdf |archive-date=2018-12-21 |url-status=dead }}</ref> {{Blockquote|[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."<ref>{{cite book |last=Laertius |first=Diogenes |translator-last=Yonge |translator-first=Charles Duke |date=1853 |title=The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers |location=London |publisher=H.G. Bohn |page=[https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_9-YFAAAAQAAJ/page/n120 109] |oclc=3123020 }}</ref>}}
-{{globalize|section|the Anglophere and Europe|date=August 2019}}
-[[Madeleine Albright]] ([[U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.]]) fell into a trap of answering a loaded question (and later regretted not challenging it instead) on ''[[60 Minutes]]'' on 12 May 1996. [[Lesley Stahl]] asked, regarding the effects of [[UN sanctions against Iraq]], "We have heard that a half million children have (''sic'') died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Instead of questioning this unattributed death toll or how much of it could have been due to sanctions, Madeleine Albright said "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."<ref>{{cite web|author=Douglas E. Hill |url=http://orangecoyote.blogspot.com/2006/07/albrights-blunder.html |title=Albright's Blunder |accessdate=2008-01-04 |year=2002 |publisher=[[Irvine Review]] |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20030603215848/http://www.irvinereview.org/guest1.htm |archivedate=2003-06-03 |url-status=dead }}</ref> She later wrote of this response:
-<blockquote>
-I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it.... As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong.... I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That is no one's fault but my own.<ref name=MA>{{cite book |title =[[Madam Secretary: A Memoir]] | first =Madeleine | last =Albright | year= 2003 | page=275 |isbn=0-7868-6843-0 }}</ref>
-</blockquote>
-For another example, the [[New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009|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".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/antismacking-debate-goes-to-referendum-2009061517 |title=Anti-smacking debate goes to referendum |publisher=3 News |date=June 15, 2009 |accessdate=2010-02-03}}</ref>
+For another example, the [[New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009|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".<ref>{{cite news |date=June 15, 2009 |title=Anti-smacking debate goes to referendum |publisher=3 News |url=http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/antismacking-debate-goes-to-referendum-2009061517 |access-date=2010-02-03}}{{Dead link|date=March 2020 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}</ref>
 ==See also==
 {{div col|colwidth=30em}}
+* [[Barber paradox]]
 * [[Complex question]]
 * [[Entailment (pragmatics)]]
@@ Line 38: / Line 34: @@
 * [https://web.archive.org/web/20120211093848/http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html Fallacy: Loaded Questions and Complex Claims] Critical Thinking exercises. San Jose State University.
 * [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question] The Fallacy Files
+*[https://fallacyinlogic.com/loaded-question-fallacy/ What Is The Loaded Question Fallacy? Definition and Examples] Fallacy in Logic
+{{Fallacies}}
-{{Informal Fallacy}}
-{{Relevance fallacies}}
+{{Authority control}}
 {{DEFAULTSORT:Loaded Question}}

Latest revision as of 05:12, 21 May 2023

Defense[edit]

Historical examples[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

External links[edit]