3 ms·
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument and not a logical fallacy. While the argument doesn't prove or disprove anything, it can show inconsistency. Fo
by arvinjoar 14y ago
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument and not a logical fallacy. While the argument doesn't prove or disprove anything, it can show inconsistency. For example one person might say "I think taking the middle ground is always a good thing" and one might reply "So the middle ground between Hitler and Stalin is good then?", if the first person were to say "no" he would have exposed an inconsistency in his logic, rendering his first statement all but useless.
- cliffbean 14y agoWhile there was a "reductio ad absurdam" in there, it appears that term was used in error. From the rest of the post, the complaint appears to have been about an alleged "straw man argument". I have no comment on the issue, I just wanted to point out a terminology confusion.
- reitzensteinm 14y agoYou are both right. My use of the term was in error. I meant to say it was reduced to absurdity while being presented as an inevitable logical conclusion, which is a straw man argument. Without the straw man, reductio ad absurdum alone is just a tool, not a fallacy, as you say.