To my certain knowledge this has been around forty years. I was taught Logic O-level until my (RC) headteacher put a stop to it, thereby guaranteeing my enthusiasm, and I recall our teacher making just this distinction between the actual meaning and the colloquial meaning - circa 1965
As he was referring to a widespread abuse, I assume it had had currency for some years before that
Whether the term should be abandoned is another matter. There is something to be said for explaining that one is using the term in its original sense because there are many who do not see the possibility that such a meaning exists, belieiving that an assertion is strong enough is proof.
In a recent exchange, I watched articles being cited as "relevant" to a subject as if that meant that what the articles said were true.
Earlier today I took a break to google a claim I thought suspect and found the same person had made a claim elsewhere and justified his claim by citing Isaac Asimov as his source - thence "everyone knows" Asimov was a renaiissance man thence Asimov must be presumed right thence it is incumbent upon dissenters to prove the negative
L
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Corelis <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:38 PM
Subject: Some language oddities in progress
Another is the drift in meaning of the phrase "beg the question." This
originally meant, and still properly should mean, the logical fallacy of
assuming the point at question, as in "School children should be required to
recite the Pledge of Allegiance in class to teach them patriotism" (when the
question at issue is exactly whether such an exercise is an appropriate
expression of patriotism for Americans.) This is now being more and more
used as a substitute for "raise the question," as in, "The increasing crisis
in Fredonia begs the question of how long the Firely regime can continue to
hold power." This always grates on me horribly, but then who am I ...
|