So, I am curious about what fallacy the following kind of logic represents.

Let's say we are questioning if something is true. I would argue that in order for us to question if something is true we need some sort of reference point to what that something really is in order to doubt that thing is true.

So, the fallacy i'm looking to describe is where the answer to the question/argument is implied by the question/argument.

I want to say begging the question but I feel that is different.

I am curious about what fallacy the following kind of reasoning represents.

Let's say we are questioning if something is true. I would argue that in order for us to question if something is true we need some sort of reference point to what that something really is in order to doubt that thing is true.

So, the fallacy I'm looking to describe is where the answer to the question/argument is implied by the question/argument.

I want to say begging the question but I feel that is different.

So, I am curious about what fallacy the following kind of logic represents.

Lets say we are questioning if thing is true. I would argue that in order for us to question if thing is true we need some sort of reference point to what thing really is in order to have doubt of that thing.

So, the fallacy i'm looking to describe is where the answer to the question/argument is implied by the question/argument.

I want to say begging the question but I feel that is different.

So, I am curious about what fallacy the following kind of logic represents.

Let's say we are questioning if something is true. I would argue that in order for us to question if something is true we need some sort of reference point to what that something really is in order to doubt that thing is true.

So, the fallacy i'm looking to describe is where the answer to the question/argument is implied by the question/argument.

I want to say begging the question but I feel that is different.