Talk:Reductio ad absurdum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reductio ad absurdum article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Is this article just plain wrong?

You are going to hate me saying this, but...has this article just flat-out misunderstood what a reductio ad absurdum is? I've always thought of it as a fallacious argument created by pushing a proposition beyond its logical constraints, such as taking the statement that "the more sleep one gets the healthier one is" and saying that "well somebody who sleeps 24 hrs a day must be in the best of health". But the article seems to describe it as a method of proving or disproving a claim, when it really isn't: it would be like defining "theft" as "a method of testing a security system". A similar case was the "lie-to-children" article, which was exactly wrong for several years. Is there anywhere on Wikipedia where I can report something like this? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've not completely understood how RAA has been traditionally applied, but it's fair to say this article is confusing. This talk page is a fine place to air your criticisms. The article is in the scope of the philosophy, logic and mathematics Wikiprojects, but I don't think any of them are better places for this discussion.

Seeing the existence of problems in WP articles is one thing, coming up with a plan to resolve those problems is another, and realising those plans and getting other editors on board so that your changes endure is yet another. There's not often somebody you can conveniently delegate the task of improvement to. Sorting out the problems in this particular logic article is not a priority for me personally. Is it for you? — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point...indeed, points. However, I do have the kind of skin that eventually itches if things don't line up, so I'll wait for it to become super-irritating. Thanks for the reply. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

old comment, but you probably meant Appeal to ridicule (ad absurdo) Gratecznik (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really makes sense to mention the mathematical proof by contradiction? A proof by contradiction is not a logical fallacy. I feel that this is confusing to the reader. 126.248.189.180 (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citation. The term is used for both an informal method of argument and formal proof by contradiction. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarjuna

While I welcome and accept the mention of Prasanga in this article, the suggestion that Nagarjuna’s purpose was to refute other philosophers sorely misses the point. In Buddhism, and especially in Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka, the purpose of Reductio was to demonstrate the emptiness of an efficacious self of persons (indeed all phenomena) as it is this innate, intuitive belief in an efficacious self of persons that is understood to be at the root of all faults. Nagarjuna’s mission was soteriological. 20040302 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]