3 ms·
> You haven't done so. Theory: "the DFU port seems to be the USB-C port on the right side of the Mac [p], not on the left side." Reductio ad absurdum: "[p] po
by tgma 9mo ago
> You haven't done so.
Theory: "the DFU port seems to be the USB-C port on the right side of the Mac [p], not on the left side."
Reductio ad absurdum: "[p] port R is DFU => [q] we should be able to execute DFU process on port R (and not port L)" We execute DFU on port R and it fails [NOT q], therefore [NOT p], so the theory cannot be correct. QED
- lapcat 9mo agoYou can turn every empirical theory into a so-called "reductio ad absurdum" by phrasing the results of empirical tests as a premise in the argument, but that is itself totally absurd and a mockery of the logical idea.
- tgma 9mo agoIt's not a mockery—that is precisely at the core of scientific method. Theory makes predictions (logical implications), and if you empirically find contradictory evidence, the theory is proven incorrect.
- lapcat 9mo ago> Theory makes predictions (logical implications), and if you empirically find contradictory evidence, the theory is proven incorrect. Of course. But again, that is not the form of argumentation known as reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is not at the core of scientific method. Reductio ad absurdum is used for example in pure, nonempirical mathematics and geometry, and typically starts by assuming the opposite of the conclusion.