0
What is the significance of the reductio ad absurdum argument in the works of the philosopher?
The reductio ad absurdum argument is significant in philosophy because it involves showing that a statement or argument leads to absurd or contradictory conclusions, thereby demonstrating its falsehood. This method is commonly used to challenge and refute flawed reasoning in philosophical works.
What else can I help you with?
What is an example of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy in a logical argument?
An example of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy in a logical argument is when someone argues that if we allow people to have freedom of speech, then they will start saying harmful and dangerous things, so we should not allow freedom of speech at all.
What is taking an opponent's argument to its illogical conclusion?
It sounds like what might be a very effective rhetorical device if used skilfully. The idea would be to take elements of the opponent's argument and use the facts presented to support outcomes that few if any would support.
Which rhetorical device asks us to accept premises that are as controversial as the conclusion being argued for and which are controversial on the same grounds?
Begging the questionScandalous
What did Aristotle say about falling objects?
He basically said that heavier things fall faster. This is not true. Here's a reductio ad absurdum argument to show that it can't be true. Suppose that it IS true. Now drop a 10 pound cannonball and a 20 pound cannonball from the same height. Obviously, the 20 pound cannonball hits the ground first. (Remember, we're assuming Aristotle was right.) Now let's take a string and connect the two cannonballs. The twenty-pound cannonball will fall faster than the ten-pound cannonball ... until they pull the string taut. Now what happens? Does the heavy ball speed the light one up, or does the light ball slow the heavy one down? Do they fall at the average speed of the two? And how do the cannonballs know they're tied together so they know how to fall?
What is an example of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy in a logical argument?
An example of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy in a logical argument is when someone argues that if we allow people to have freedom of speech, then they will start saying harmful and dangerous things, so we should not allow freedom of speech at all.
If you had to choose - deadlift or squat?
You don't. Quit the reductio ad absurdum and do both.
What describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove?
It is a phrase, not a term. The phrase is reductio ad absurdum.
What term describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of What you want to prove?
It is a phrase, not a term. The phrase is reductio ad absurdum.
What is the difference between reductio ad ridiculum and reductio ad absudum?
I do believe that the difference is as follows: Reductio ad Absurdum is a valid argument in which you prove or disprove something by following logical conclusions until you find an absurd statement. Ex. Father: Why did you start smoking? Daughter: All my friends were doing it. Father: You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too? The father uses reductio ad absurdum by following the logical conclusion that the daughter will do anything her friends do, the result of this is of course absurd. Reductio ad ridiculum however, is NOT a valid for of argument and just makes you sound uneducated if you use it. It is taking a statement to an extreme, however correct level as an attempt to discredit it, this however is unfair and does not actually challenge the argument. EX Borrowed from Wikipedia If Einsteins theory of relativity were true then when I drive my car it would get more massive, now come on that's ridiculous! (This of course is true, although humans can't detect it)
What is another name for a proof of contradiction?
Proof by contradiction is also known by its Latin equivalent, reductio ad absurdum.
What is taking an opponent's argument to its illogical conclusion?
It sounds like what might be a very effective rhetorical device if used skilfully. The idea would be to take elements of the opponent's argument and use the facts presented to support outcomes that few if any would support.
What is an example of a reductio ad absurdum?
Mom: "Why did you drink alcohol when you know you're not of age?" Son: "All of my friends were doing it." Mom: "So, if all of your friends jumped off a bridge, you would too?"
Which term best describe a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove?
The Latin phrase is "reductio ad absurdum", meaning reduction to absurdity. You assume the opposite and show that logically it leads to a contradiction and therefore cannot be true.
What term best describe a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you want to prove?
The Latin phrase is "reductio ad absurdum", meaning reduction to absurdity. You assume the opposite and show that logically it leads to a contradiction and therefore cannot be true.
Which rhetorical device asks us to accept premises that are as controversial as the conclusion being argued for and which are controversial on the same grounds?
Begging the questionScandalous
Which term best describes a proof in which you assume the opposite of what you wan to prove?
Proof by contradiction (APEX)
