Theology Question

BidenPresident said:
Use a dictionary you fucking moron.
Click to expand...

You mean a dictionary will tell me your opinion on a word?

Wow. Ya learn something every day. By the way, Damo is handing you your ass. Be polite...say thank you.

hysterical-laughter.gif
 
BidenPresident said:
"if a supposition leads to a contradiction, then the supposition must be false given that the premises are true (according to the rule of “reductio ad absurdum,”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/reductio-ad-absurdum

This is a very standard definition of the reductio. You are free to say whatever you want, but it has no place in logic.
Click to expand...

LOL again... to make it not the fallacy, which I listed, you must use the classic argument and make it contradictory (state the opposite), if the opposite as stated negates the premise, then you have discharged the premise.

You did not provide a contradiction, you attempted to mock the argument.

From the site you linked to (once again bolding important words and bits):
There is now a contradiction between a sentence in the domain of the premises (The engine did start) and a sentence in the subdomain of the supposition (The engine did not start). The rule of reductio ad absurdum uses such a contradiction to deny, and thereby to discharge, the supposition that led to the contradiction:

Your argument was not the classic reductio ad absurdum, it was a clear reductio ad ridiculum, which is also known as reductio ad absurdum fallacy in the list of fallacious arguments.

Here. I'll help.

From now on I'll refer to the fallacy as the reductio ad ridiculum fallacy so your uneducated mind can understand it.

Both sides of Reductio ad absurdum are taught in a logic class in colleges around the world today. The classic argument where you contradict (flip the statement to the opposite) to show that it is an absurdity. However as a fallacy it is just a form of reductio ad ridiculum (boy you must believe that you can't be certain Santa Claus/Fairies exist/s!)
 
Damocles said:
LOL again... to make it not the fallacy, which I listed, you must use the classic argument and make it contradictory (state the opposite), if the opposite as stated negates the premise, then you have discharged the premise.

You did not provide a contradiction, you attempted to mock the argument.

From the site you linked to (once again bolding important words and bits):
There is now a contradiction between a sentence in the domain of the premises (The engine did start) and a sentence in the subdomain of the supposition (The engine did not start). The rule of reductio ad absurdum uses such a contradiction to deny, and thereby to discharge, the supposition that led to the contradiction:

Your argument was not the classic reductio ad absurdum, it was a clear reductio ad ridiculum, which is also known as reductio ad absurdum fallacy in the list of fallacious arguments.

Here. I'll help.

From now on I'll refer to the fallacy as the reductio ad ridiculum fallacy so your uneducated mind can understand it.


Both sides of Reductio ad absurdum are taught in a logic class in colleges around the world today. The classic argument where you contradict (flip the statement to the opposite) to show that it is an absurdity. However as a fallacy it is just a form of reductio ad ridiculum (boy you must believe that you can't be certain Santa Claus/Fairies exist/s!)
Click to expand...

I know of only one use in logic of the reductio. I have never seen it used to mean an insult. Can you cite something from an article on logic to support your definition to include insults?

To clarify, I am only interested in the definition of "reductio ad absurdum."
 
Damocles said:
LOL again... to make it not the fallacy, which I listed, you must use the classic argument and make it contradictory (state the opposite), if the opposite as stated negates the premise, then you have discharged the premise.

You did not provide a contradiction, you attempted to mock the argument.

From the site you linked to (once again bolding important words and bits):
There is now a contradiction between a sentence in the domain of the premises (The engine did start) and a sentence in the subdomain of the supposition (The engine did not start). The rule of reductio ad absurdum uses such a contradiction to deny, and thereby to discharge, the supposition that led to the contradiction:

Your argument was not the classic reductio ad absurdum, it was a clear reductio ad ridiculum, which is also known as reductio ad absurdum fallacy in the list of fallacious arguments.

Here. I'll help.

From now on I'll refer to the fallacy as the reductio ad ridiculum fallacy so your uneducated mind can understand it.

Both sides of Reductio ad absurdum are taught in a logic class in colleges around the world today. The classic argument where you contradict (flip the statement to the opposite) to show that it is an absurdity. However as a fallacy it is just a form of reductio ad ridiculum (boy you must believe that you can't be certain Santa Claus/Fairies exist/s!)
Click to expand...

Reductio ad Absurdum

A method of proof which proceeds by stating a proposition and then showing that it results in a contradiction, thus demonstrating the proposition to be false. In the words of G. H. Hardy, "Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons.

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ReductioadAbsurdum.html
 
Damocles said:
LOL again... to make it not the fallacy, which I listed, you must use the classic argument and make it contradictory (state the opposite), if the opposite as stated negates the premise, then you have discharged the premise.

You did not provide a contradiction, you attempted to mock the argument.

From the site you linked to (once again bolding important words and bits):
There is now a contradiction between a sentence in the domain of the premises (The engine did start) and a sentence in the subdomain of the supposition (The engine did not start). The rule of reductio ad absurdum uses such a contradiction to deny, and thereby to discharge, the supposition that led to the contradiction:

Your argument was not the classic reductio ad absurdum, it was a clear reductio ad ridiculum, which is also known as reductio ad absurdum fallacy in the list of fallacious arguments.

Here. I'll help.

From now on I'll refer to the fallacy as the reductio ad ridiculum fallacy so your uneducated mind can understand it.

Both sides of Reductio ad absurdum are taught in a logic class in colleges around the world today. The classic argument where you contradict (flip the statement to the opposite) to show that it is an absurdity. However as a fallacy it is just a form of reductio ad ridiculum (boy you must believe that you can't be certain Santa Claus/Fairies exist/s!)
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.

https://codedocs.org/what-is/reductio-ad-absurdum
 
BidenPresident said:
Reductio ad Absurdum

A method of proof which proceeds by stating a proposition and then showing that it results in a contradiction, thus demonstrating the proposition to be false. In the words of G. H. Hardy, "Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons.

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ReductioadAbsurdum.html
Click to expand...

Yes, this agrees with me. To be this argument it must show a contradiction.

At this point you are into a new fallacy.

The reality is:
1. Reductio ad absurdum is both of these things. A classic argument, and a logical fallacy.
2. I defined both, and gave you links to them.
3. You ignored what you wanted to ignore and failed to comprehend what was given, as you notably regularly do. Even giving me links that proved my point.
4. Then you simply repeat the same thing mindlessly.

Your current fallacy is an Argument by Repetition (another one of those things taught in logic classes, along with both the reductio ad absurdum classic argument and how to spot the fallacy of the same name).

An argument by repetition (ABR; also known as ad nauseam or ad infinitum) is a fallacy by which the speaker uses the same word, phrase, story, or imagery repeatedly with the hopes that the repetition will lead to persuasion.

In this case, you are simply ignorant and instead of learning and advancing you simply rinse and repeat in the hopes that I'll suddenly be convinced you are "right" in some way, though you keep proving yourself wrong with your own links. I'll let you have the "last word" so to speak, because once I have to point out that your links prove what I stated rather than refute it, it becomes monotonous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top