Logic, rhetoric, debate question

[goju]

There is a term used in response to a non sensible question ie, when did you stop beating your wife. What is that term?

[smiley_glad_hands]

1. Non Sequitor?

Just a guess as it has been 10+ years since the logic class.

[goju]

2. No

Its a one word non sense term. It means nothing, as does the question being posed. Age is catching up to me, mind is slipping......help!

[brindis_desala]

5. that is the argument itself: a fallacy

[brindis_desala]

3. begging the question, two assumptions proposed as fact.

[goju]

7. Not that either

Its not a logic fallacy, its just a word, or term, that has no meaning. Its used in response to questions that cannot be answered as the question itself is flawed.

[LanternWaste]

4. A "complex question"

The statement in question is called a "complex question", a common logical fallacy. A quicky definition of the complex questions is that it is not really a question at all, but an If-Then statement with a question mark at the end of it.

It has to be a two-parter question (i.e., two separate and distinct statments) and the logic of the question ends up resting upon the validity of both statements.

Thank goodness for Logic 1301 way back when...lol

[flamin lib]

10. Yeppers, that's it!

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/cq.htm

Complex Question is the answer.

[LanternWaste]

13. Holy Non-Sequiter, Batman!

Holy Non-Sequiter, Batman! Just noticed you're in Arlington. I work there and live in Ft Worth (at least until Dec. when I move back to Cancun).

Maybe a "Not in Dallas" Mid-Cities/Metroplex DU meet up is in order for the summer...

[yewberry]

6. Loaded question?

It presupposes (usually negative) "facts" not in evidence. I think it's a kind of logical fallacy.

[flamin lib]

8. Flauxinilifilifacation.

As in, "That, Sir, is a mere flauxinilifilifacaton!"

A noun made up with roots in five languages all meaning "nothing". Defined as a thing of no value, devoid of content.

Most often cited as one of the longest words in the English Language.

It's not the logical fallacy you're looking for, but spooks hell of of people.

[goju]

12. Not what I had in mind

But Im going to copy it, since I dont dare spell it :)

Has the same effect as mu, but more punch. I like it!

[iverglas]

9. mu

It's the response to a "loaded question".

The question itself -- like "have you stopped beating your dog?" -- can't be answered if one or both of the implied premises -- that you have a dog, and that you have beaten your dog at least once -- are false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(Japanese_word)
(edit -- here's a clickable link, I hope: mu

In more standard logic, the correct "answer" is to reject the question:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

1. "Have you ever beaten your wife?"
2. "If so, are you still doing so?"

In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.

Such a question would of course never be allowed in court; it "assumes facts not in evidence", asks a question for which there is no evidentiary basis. The rules followed in courtrooms are often based on wisdom that applies throughout the wider world. ;)

Now, if that wisdom could be absorbed back at the place where loaded questions are frequently aimed and fired at discussion participants at DU ... "why are you trying to take my guns away? why do you hate freedom?" ... life would indeed be much nicer.

And I was going to say that I prefer to omit the wife-beating from the loaded question scenario, since someone like me would have run up against yet another impossibility in answering. But of course, someone like me has been entitled to have a wife if I want one, up here in Canada land, for over 4 years now! Nonetheless, gratuitous and possibly flippant references to violence against women, where the audience's experiences are not known, should probably be avoided.

(Since you requested my assistance, as the recognized authority on "mu" hereabouts, I get to pontificate, right?)

[goju]

11. Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!! We have a winnner

Thank you iverglas. I knew you could straighten this out for us. :)

[geek tragedy]

14. Compound or leading question. eom