Talk:Reductio ad absurdum

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Rolled back to previous version.
 
Rolled back to previous version.
  
This is not a form of the straw man fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is a logical proof which attempts to disprove a claim by assuming it as a premise and demonstrating, by arriving at a contradictory conclusion in a valid argument, that it must be false. The principle is that a logically valid syllogism is one where if both premises are true, the conclusion must be true. If the conclusion is false, one or more of the premises must be false. By demonstrating that the second premise is true, the suspect premise must be false. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:48, 30 August 2006 (MST)
+
This is not a form of the straw man fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is a logical argument which attempts to disprove a claim by assuming it as the major premise and demonstrating that the claim cannot be true by arriving at a false conclusion in a valid argument with a minor premise which is known to be true. The principle is that a logically valid syllogism is one where if both premises are true, the conclusion must be true. If the conclusion is false, one or more of the premises must be false. By demonstrating that the minor premise is true, the suspect premise must be false. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:48, 30 August 2006 (MST)
  
 
: Umm... what "second premise"? The article only mentions a single premise, the one that ultimately gets rejected. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 01:58, 31 August 2006 (MST)
 
: Umm... what "second premise"? The article only mentions a single premise, the one that ultimately gets rejected. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 01:58, 31 August 2006 (MST)
 +
 +
I reworded my explanation above...and I'll try to get examples into the article soon. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 06:38, 31 August 2006 (MST)

Revision as of 07:38, 31 August 2006

Rolled back to previous version.

This is not a form of the straw man fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is a logical argument which attempts to disprove a claim by assuming it as the major premise and demonstrating that the claim cannot be true by arriving at a false conclusion in a valid argument with a minor premise which is known to be true. The principle is that a logically valid syllogism is one where if both premises are true, the conclusion must be true. If the conclusion is false, one or more of the premises must be false. By demonstrating that the minor premise is true, the suspect premise must be false. - Sans Deity 20:48, 30 August 2006 (MST)

Umm... what "second premise"? The article only mentions a single premise, the one that ultimately gets rejected. - dcljr 01:58, 31 August 2006 (MST)

I reworded my explanation above...and I'll try to get examples into the article soon. -- Sans Deity 06:38, 31 August 2006 (MST)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox