I noted earlier James' question:
> Robert, would you support this
> VALID ARGUMENT as SOUND???
> (A) The Holy Ghost descended upon
> the people after the gospel was
> (B) I am preaching tomorrow.
> (C) The Holy Ghost will descend
> upon the people after I preach.
> Robert, the argument is valid, its
> form is good, WILL YOU SUPPORT
> THIS AS A SOUND ARGUMENT????
And then I noted, in relevant part, after "mathewmaury" pointed out the
above argument isn't valid to begin with:
> I think I saw something in my critical
> thinking textbook that pointed out the
> clever fault in James' question.
After browsing back through the book I found what I was thinking about
on page 261ff:
> And that is how complex questions
> "beg" the question: They embed
> assumptions within a question. By
> answering the question you seem
> to grant the embedded assumption.
> The shrewd attorney asks the
> villanous defendant: "Why did you
> leave behind the diamond neck-
> lace when you robbed Lady Big
> Bucks' country estate?"
> "I didn't see a diamond necklace,"
> replies the hapless defendant,
> thereby admitting that he indeed
> is the thief.
> Complex questions are only too
> common in everyday life. When
> they escape detection they
> insidiously control thought.
> So be wary of complex questions:
> They may control discussion and
> control the range of possibilities
> considered. Don't be in such
> haste to get to the answer that
> you overlook dangerous
> assumptions concealed in the
I guess we owe a debt of gratitude to our own "mathewmaury" for helping
us identify James' complex question that does appear to contain a
dangerous and false assumption about the validity of the argument