Talk:Loaded question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Implied Dilemma: Source?[edit]

Can anyone provide a good source for "implied dilemma?" I have not found anything authoritative so far despite pretty intensive searching, though I have found several websites that seem to cut and paste from this one! Part of the reason I feel a source is needed is that the current wording does not make all that much sense and is confusing.Legitimus (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid I took that route already and was unable to find anything that defines it.
I actually came to this article seeking a meaning for how I have heard several people use the term "loaded question." These [anecdotal] source say that is when you ask a question that has something hidden motive to it, in that it tries to force a person to answer a certain way, not through a fallacious presupposition, but rather an emotive word or concept. Examples:
  • The boss asks an employee "Do you have a future here?" The employee wanting to not be fired feels he must say "yes" because to say "no" implies he does not wish to work there anymore. And trying to dodge the question might come across as insubordinate.
  • The classic and somewhat infamous scenario of a woman asking her boyfriend "Am I fat?" The word fat has a very negative connotation, and so if the man answers "yes" he is openly insulting her. Therefore the questioned feels he must answer "no."
  • Asking a suspect/witness "Did you viciously murder this animal?" Again, vicious and murder are extremely negative, and the questioned may feel they must answer "no."
This meaning I think is matched to Implied Dilemma, but I am not sure.Legitimus (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am moving the (unrefed) content of the para on implied dillema here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Implied Dilemma (not a fallacy): A form of “trick question” which forces a negative response and validates a dilemma, whereas the positive response has an invariant outcome in the created dilemma. For example, if a boss asks an employee, “Do you have a future here?”, even if the recipient answers with a positive response, the outcome of the positive response was never in the recipient's control to begin with; this form of questioning is often used for smugness over the recipient or to speed results in interrogations.

Mark Crispin[edit]

Can someone please add something to the Mark Crispin quote in the final section to provide some context? Coming in as a causal reader I have no idea how this fits into the article. If not perhaps it should be deleted.--SabreBD (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with complex question?[edit]

Numerous online sources (e.g. The Fallacy Files) suggest that loaded question and complex question are the same fallacy. Yet, Wikipedia has separate articles for each. I recommend that the articles either be merged or be edited to explain how they are different from each other. --JHP (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I now see that the complex question article has a section called complex question fallacy which directs people to this article. My logic textbook defines complex question differently than Wikipedia, such that complex question and loaded question would be synonyms. --JHP (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit for clarity?[edit]

I want to propose this page gets a banner saying it needs editing for clarity. In particular, I think the 2nd paragraph uses abstruse, convoluted phrasing to make its points. It is too dense, and could do with fleshing out in plain English.

I don't understand the notation for wiki editing, nor do I intend to start making changes without first having some feedback about what to change. So I'm just flagging up my concerns. 92.236.151.64 (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife?[edit]

Actually if one were to reply "no" it could imply that wife beating never started (i.e. Question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" ... Answer: "No. Because I never started") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.50.194 (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the supposed presupposition is unclean, linguistically. "To stop smoking" is idiomatic, and the idiomatic layer helps to tangle up stative and durative aspects of the verb to the point that the answers "no" and "yes" are not strict logical alternatives (the discourse agreement behind posing a legitimate yes/no question presupposes a logical semantics). This magic trick only works with a dull audience, something that should be pointed out far more vigorously than is usually done. It seems that our collective "it's a trap!" glee manages to dull the brain even further. — MaxEnt 11:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)