3 ms·
If someone argues “X implies <you should do something stupid and bad>. It is absurd to conclude <you should do something stupid and bad>, so therefore, by reduc
by drdeca 7y ago
If someone argues “X implies <you should do something stupid and bad>. It is absurd to conclude <you should do something stupid and bad>, so therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, X is false.”
your refutation should not be “actually, reductio ad absurdum is invalid.”, but rather “It is not the case that <x> implies <you should do something stupid and bad>”.
Perhaps their derivation of the absurd conclusion from the claim <X> was based on a misunderstanding of the claim <X>, or perhaps their derivation of the absurd conclusion from it was based on some fallacy, or some false assumption.
But reductio is a valid logical step, so long as we have the validity of the argument that the absurd conclusion follows from the premise.
- fragmede 7y agoHmm, thank you for the response. In this specific case, X is: "Personally, my take is the opposite: if you are an ethical person find the very worst company that you are still willing to work for and try to change them from the inside" with the response, Y: "join ISIS' IT department" What is the refutation of this particular "X implies Y" you would have used instead? Is there one that doesn't require refining X and instead attacks the Y? X is already
- fragmede 7y agoHmm, thank you for the response. In this specific case, X is: "Personally, my take is the opposite: if you are an ethical person find the very worst company that you are still willing to work for and try to change them from the inside" with the response, Y: "join ISIS' IT department" What is the refutation of this particular "X implies Y" you would have used instead? Is there one that doesn't require refining X and instead attacks the Y? X is already verbose, and adding additional verbiage does not help the case (IMO)