News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Reducto ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy if that's what you're getting at. It's a very important logical tool that happens to be a Latin phrase with a similar cadence to Latin names of logical fallacies. People on the Internet mess this up all the time, and it's become a pet peeve of mine.
I don't think OP is right--there's lots of different layers to issues like this that can be explored--but not because of that.
Not inherently, no, but it is when used fallaciously. Like in this case.
Just like deliberate hyperbole is not a fallacy when used skillfully and transparently to underscore a point, it's the context and the delivery that decides whether something is a valid reducto ad absurdum argument or a reducto ad absurdum fallacy.
In case you forgot while I was elaborating: this is a case of the latter.
Yeah, you're doing it right now.
You're sorta right about that: the way they expressed their wrongheaded opinion isn't the cause of them being wrong, merely a symptom.
It never is. There might be some other logical fallacy at play. Slippery slope is a common one in cases where people cite reducto ad absurdum. But why not cite the actual fallacy rather than the one that isn't a fallacy at all?
Or maybe don't. Generally, logical fallacies are better used to pick apart your own arguments rather than tossing them in other people's faces.
Nope. There is no such thing as reducto ad absurdum fallacy. I challenge you to find a citation otherwise, because I can cite a lot of stuff that talks about its use as a tool of logic and does not mention fallacies what so ever, or does so only as part of connected information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum - "In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or apagogical arguments, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction". The word "fallacy" does not even appear on the page except as a link to "See Also - Argument from fallacy".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/reductio-ad-absurdum - "reductio ad absurdum, (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”), in logic, a form of refutation showing contradictory or absurd consequences following upon premises as a matter of logical necessity." Fallacies are only mentioned further down the page as connected information.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum - "1) disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion 2) the carrying of something to an absurd extreme" Again, no mention of fallacy. It's a tool to disprove something.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Reductio-ad-Absurdum - "A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy." Note that last sentence. Reducto ad absurdum is about exposing the fallacy, not creating one. This on a web site that's all about logical fallacies, and they ain't saying it's a fallacy.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~dnp/frege/reductio-ad-absurdum.html - "The Proof by Contradiction technique that we just described is a special case of a more general reasoning strategy called reductio ad absurdum. (Translate this literally as, “reduce to absurdity”.) We can use this more general strategy in everyday rhetoric as well as in mathematics". Again, no mention of fallacy.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/69916/is-reductio-ad-absurdum-a-fallacy - Top level response explicitly says it's not a fallacy.
Edit: a few more to pile on.
https://www.quora.com/Which-type-of-fallacy-is-reductio-ad-absurdum-Whats-its-definition-example-how-it-works-in-real-life-situations - Top level response explicitly says it's not a fallacy.
https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903 - "Like any argumentative strategy, reductio ad absurdum can be misused and abused, but in itself it is not a form of fallacious reasoning. A related form of argument, the slippery slope argument, takes reductio ad absurdum to an extreme and is often (but not always) fallacious. " Here again, the argument might be making a fallacy, but reducto ad absurdum is not it.
You're fundamentally ignoring or misunderstanding what a fallacy is. Here's the dictionary definition:
Note that, by any of those 3 definitions, the argument that it's absurd to take Ben & Jerry's freedom of speech seriously because Trump is a fallacy.
Just likely a slippery slope argument is valid when a certain course of action legitimately leads to increasingly negative outcomes (such as for example treating Trump as a serious candidate in the first place in 2015), a usually valid argument technique is fallacious when used fallaciously.
And in case you still believe that nothing can be a fallacy without having the word "fallacy" in the opening paragraph of Wikipedia, I invite you to look up "hyperbole" and "slippery slope" there.
If they're guilty of hyperbole or slippery slope, then say that. Lumping in reducto ad absurdum takes away from a very powerful and useful tool of formal logic. Overloading the term makes understanding more fuzzy, not more clarifying.
I JUST told you about how hyperbole and slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallacious. Just like reducto ad absurdum arguments, they're fallacies when used fallaciously and otherwise NOT fallacies.
Is that clear enough, or do you want me to Ask Figaro?
Let's go back a few steps in the thread. The response was simply "Reducto ad absurdum" as if that explained it right there. Except, that's not itself a fallacy. It might be used in a fallacious way, but simply stating "Reducto ad absurdum" does not point out any fallacy what so ever.
And that's my whole point. People use the term in a muddy way that takes away from a tool.
So that's where you want the goal posts now?
I specifically agreed that reducto ad absurdum isn't inherently a fallacy in the first sentence of my first reply to you.
It is now that your original point that "there's no such thing as a reducto ad absurdum fallacy" has been shot to pieces 🙄
That's the case with almost every tool of every kind that people have access to.
Especially in the case of language, people are constantly using it wrong, and while I genuinely applaud your intention of projecting a useful tool from being dulled by misuse, the battle is an uphill one to begin with.
Don't make it even worse by misstating your position and then defending that mistake like it's the Korean border.
I said early on:
Yes, you can use reducto ad absurdum arguments in a fallacious way. That's true of literally any kind of argument, so it's pointless to say that. Point out the actual fallacy or don't.
Reducto ad absurdum fallacy = reducto ad absurdum used fallaciously. That's all.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
But why call that out at all? Why not call out an actual fallacy built inside a reducto ad absurdum argument (assuming there is one)? The poster way up the stack did not clarify at all. They posted "reducto ad absurdum" as if that was the end of it.
Perhaps they were using that as a shorthand for "reducto ad absurdum fallacy" and, not unreasonably, expecting that people would infer ad much from context.
Either way, we have discussed this to death and you're still beating the horse, if you will forgive the purposefully mixed metaphor.
Even if you won't, it's too late now, so we all must find a way to cope. Have a good day.