Reductio ad Absurdum - Explained with examples

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set, a compilation of all our scripts split into 3 volumes: Philosophy of Religion, Metaphysics & Ethics and Political Philosophy. Available worldwide on Amazon. The full set is available GLOBALLY on Amazon. We hope you enjoy. Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1 Volume 2 - Metaphysics mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2 Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3

[@usmc72409]

Volume 3 it’s catching my attention!

[@roodakhadar5169]

Thanks for this precious and simplified content.

[@marshallmathers4738]

Nagarjuna (Indian Buddhist Philosopher) used this method to prove his philosophy of Shunyavada.. In the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Nāgārjuna's reductio ad absurdum arguments are used to show that any theory of substance or essence was unsustainable and therefore, phenomena (dharmas) such as change, causality, and sense perception were empty (sunya) of any essential existence.

[@TheChurchOfPhakeKnewz]

The candy argument, stating that if everybody took candy, there would be no candy in the store. Left is a slippery slope argument.

[@latemanparodius5133]

Sometimes, the slippery slope is very real. Look at what happened when parts of california decriminalized shoplifting under a thousand dollars worth of stuff. Suddenly, there's a problem of people coming in and just filling trash bags with stuff off of the shelves and walking out without paying. Not everyone, but enough of an uptick that several news stories were made about it.

[@CW91]

Yes, it is not absurd that more and more people steal the sweets due to leniency of the shopkeeper. Also, some facts are not controllable by each instance therefore it is not a fallacy rather a possibility. For the garden example, we can separate which living things to keep and which to rid of. But for the shop example, one person stealing one sweet can be followed by another person doing the same, with no relevance with the previous person.

[@jessebos5413]

I always suspected Ringo Starr was an animated cartoon character! 😂

[@scottsponaas]

This channel is a content gold mine. You’ve definitely earned my subscription.

[@richardmyles8237]

Love this channel

[@trollingisasport]

People do this game discussion all the time.

[@InsertPhilosophyHere]

Hiding bad philosophy under bad cartoons is a reductio ad absurdum.

[@R-rl7qc]

How is this bad philosophy?

[@InsertPhilosophyHere]

@@R-rl7qc 1. Poor-quality cartoons. 2. Pandering to childish memes. 3. Dumbing down the ideas so much they are no longer connected to their origins. 4. Not understanding the actual topic they are pretending to discuss.

[@R-rl7qc]

good video

[@LukasTorquemada]

Slippery slope as an argument for a fallacy is quite an awkward one xD It's logically necessary to reach A to proceed in B direction. So technically it COULD be a fallacy, but practically changing directions of discourse is going directly by reaching further and further outposts, so for example if we decrease age of consent from 15 to 14, the next outpost of discussion in the subject is not going to be age of 14, but 13, and so on.

[@marcpadilla1094]

Linguistic defense mechanisms. Using half baked ideas to defend fragile egos. That's the essence of fallacy arguments.

[@hungarianinmactan1674]

Vallàs tòrténelem,+ filozofia+pszihologia+matematka ,KOMBINÀCIOJA=Hogyan lehet PATKÀNYT Fogni😮😮😮😮😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤❤❤❤❤Észrevétlrnūl!!!😂😂🎉🎉

[@usmc72409]

Def one of the best philosophy channels. Thanks for all u do!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

😀 glad you like the content.

[@usmc72409]

@@PhilosophyVibe u have no idea the amount of help u provide. I’ve recently gotten into stoicism. I like existentialism as well. However I am always curious about all of the different types of philosophy and ur channel really really helps me to understand the fallacies and provides me with a jumping off point to go down a deeper rabbit hole of understanding. I recommend u to everyone that shows interest in gaining a further understanding.

[@TonyFisherPuzzles]

The 2nd one is not Reductio ad Absurdum at all. It's straight forward non exaggerated fact.

[@changchen09]

Lovely explanation!! Loved the examples too.. very practical and reality based 😁👌🏻👏🏻 BTW, i kept my Insta note 'reductio ad absurdum' yesterday only since i study Nalanda philosophy in which the highest school of thoughts are based on it mainly. Kinda consequentialism with reductio ad absurdum 🥴👍🏻

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you! Glad you liked the video :)

[@tavrel4628]

was looking for the omnipotence paradox explanation and found myself subscribing. love your vids!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you, hope you keep enjoying the content.

[@hungarianinmactan1674]

Az un kriminologia ALAPJA😮😮😮😮😂😂😂😂😂❤❤❤I

[@deanmccrorie3461]

Slippery slope is a great example as the reactionary conclusions are generally ridiculous. HOWEVER to properly measure if slippery slope ISNT a hysterical concern, one must ask the reason behind the argument you are fighting against to judge whether the slippery slope is valid For example, say there are two people arguing for the reduction of the drinking age. One is an evil businessman and the other is an 17 year old teen. If someone were to ask the evil businessman why he wants to reduce drinking age, it’s because his liquor company would make more money if everyone of any age will drink. So when pressed to ask why he thinks we should go from 21 to 20, there’s no reason NOT to assume he won’t push it further if the policies have reduced the drinking from 21 to 20. Because his original reason for reducing the age was simply for money. It can then be correctly concluded that slippery slope is a valid concern. Whereas if you asked a teen whose simply wanting to drink right now rather than at the appropriate age, we can’t assume he’ll want to see his little 5 year old brother drinking. That’s not his line of reasoning. He simply wants to see 17 year olds drinking because he feels that’s a mature age to drink

[@blissurzu7216]

Then it’s not a slippery slope because you started your argument with a presupposition that the business man is evil and is in it for the greed. The argument changes when the syllogism is presented in such a way where the structure of the argument is presented with an already true presumption of guilt. This is a close example of poisoning the well fallacy. You start the argument by assuming the business man is “evil” which is a big no no. So of course now you can guide the argument to whichever conclusion you’d like so as long as it fits your agenda. Fallacies are fallacies for a reason.

[@deanmccrorie3461]

@@blissurzu7216 wrong. Evil is already deduced and you know it. 5 year olds drinking is wrong. The businessman isnt evil yet but rather his line of reasoning is that he wants money. And because the younger the age the more money you can make, their willl come a temptation later. Its slippery slope because if you reduce the age by one year, 21 to 20, the businessman will be tempted to lower it more and more until he forgets hes become evil or doesnt care anymore about being good. THis isnt at matter of morals but rather psycholgy over time. Most people drunk on money and power lose their morality. Thats slippery slope and thats why we are seeing drag shows for kids now. Im assuming you dont think thats wrong right?

[@blissurzu7216]

@@deanmccrorie3461 Evil is deduced because you smuggled it into your argument and then you follow it up with you "you know it". That is not an argument at all. That is an assertion. I'm not saying you are wrong. All i'm saying is rework your position.

[@deanmccrorie3461]

@@blissurzu7216 No it occurs later. As a result of temptation the businessman is confronted with Im not arguing as to what is evil or not. That is already assumed. You are trying to argue for the reasoning behind why selling alcohol is evil. If you dont disagree why do we need to probe that? Im simply arguing for the nature of slippery slope and that its a real thing that liberals tend to dismiss alot of the time. You do realize that all forms of logic have smuggling within them right? Its called an axiom. And all belief systems have axioms. If you argue against my belief, you will smuggle an axiom in your argument in too. This is the nature of the munchausen trillema. You have one of three choices in life: 1. Argue in circles 2. argue with an axiom 3. or never reach a conclusion because you admit that every axiom requires an infinte regress of reasonings that go on forever Try it. Try to beat this dillema

[@consciouspresence5880]

@@deanmccrorie3461 Awesome dilemma but why do we have to assume that there has to be an infinite regress in reasoning?

[@tonivonbismarck6312]

wow thank you so much for an easy to follow explanation! definitely subsrcibe

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome :) thanks for the sub.

[@nedshead5906]

The second argument is logical, just look at Walmart in Chicago, “it’s just one pair of Nike shoes, and one big screen tv” now the stores are going broke and closing 😂

[@Pes21-o7r]

That's what I thought as well.

[@mattikemppinen6750]

2:25 grass is living, so is the gardener, the video doesn't really follow through with the argument (or is he an android with green carpet in the garden?)

[@nehakeshari7693]

I'm the first one here...

[@itscarlosreally]

I love you, British Philosophical Werner Herzog.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!

[@Maharajah_Alagadaogun]

I'm next here

[@rastgo4432]

Thanks for these awesome videos

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome, thanks for watching.

[@kondannagariashok321]

Plss do comeup vth husserls method

[@DetoNaGamerscom]

I always use it mixed with sarcasm. I still don't know why people hate me.

[@bigmikem90]

Explain it to me like I'm five years old.

[@richardmyles8237]

lol 😂

[@hassanprince9095]

very well explained

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you :)

[@bassk1000o]

what if one draws a clear line during their idea/argument? but the person just goes ahead anyways and ridicules you? then everybody just laughs and you stay there thinking "obviously I'm not gonna go that far and I did state my limits at some point".

[@mugsofmirth8101]

Good video

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you.

[@martinkuliza]

Notice how lately many people have been calling it AMAZERN itnstead of AMAZON

[@selenasophie5245]

I'm here lol

[@swickens930]

Honestly, just don't use this argument. Idk why anyone ever tried to say this argument is a good method. It's inherently flawed. Take the first example, that WAS a strawman. The original argument and issue at hand, is that the farmers plants are getting eaten. The strawman that was provided does not solve the issue at hand, making it inherently a straw man. It also assumes that the farmer has a moral view of his plants. If the farmer said "I can't have living things in my garden," he's right... What if the farmer does not morally believe that plants are "living"? Saying that he must remove his whole garden is absurd and it's a strawman. This is no different at all from the vegan analogy, they are literally the same thing. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if this video is just poorly made but, I'd avoid using this form of argument altogether. The second example with the candy kinda makes sense, but that's not an absurd argument at all, it's just a scaling argument. You're arguing "at what scale," which wouldn't be a reductio ad absurdium anyway. Scaling arguments seem fine to me but literally don't try to use reductio ad absurdium

[@Wabbelpaddel]

The formula ((p -> q) & (p -> ~q)) -> ~p is the reductio ad absurdum, and it IS a tautology. With it you can gauge out how deterministic/modular a given set of propositions is. For example, if you shoot a ball and it goes into one direction and another simultaneously, you could not have shot it or both directions are impossible, only one was decided. It is the basis for computations and deterministic automata.

[@swickens930]

@@Wabbelpaddel I understand how that could be used mathematically but it's not as consistent logically or philosophically. For instance, if you take government welfare/socialism and extend those out to their most absurd degrees, then you obviously end up with a really shitty and unsustainable economic system. However, little bits of safety nets in societies can actually be a good thing and mixed economies tend to be superior. So if you're talking about economies, you can't really use reduction to the absurd because if you did that, every single economic system would become ridiculous. Yet that doesn't disprove that we should still use some of those economic systems.

[@carloss1626]

@@swickens930 You're didn't even understand what was said in the video and also clearly haven't even a rudimentary understanding of formal logic or philosophy. Reductio ad absurdum is regarded as a very effective argumentation method by academic philosophy everywhere. Go try and tell anyone with a PHD in philosophy the nonsense you just spewed and see how they treat you.

[@swickens930]

@@carloss1626 Dude. This video literally describes reasons as to how it can be used poorly. I literally just gave another example. It's poor argumentation. It's "regarded" by nerds who make bad arguments. I wouldn't even try to use it. I could probably create a situation in almost any debate where using this would actually look poorly on you. For instance, if you made a claim and took it to any logical conclusion, I would just refute that your logical conclusion is false. Then the debate would go in the direction, which I would then accuse you of red herring, which the audience would believe. Essentially no matter what "absurd conclusion" you reduce the argument to, I would just create an argument that suggests your conclusion itself is based in falsehood. It inevitably leads into a rabbit hole, which I would just accuse you of creating lol. It's poor argumentation. Seriously, it's for people who don't have a strong stance on their own. I have philosophy degrees btw. I was writing AP state tests for English and debate when I was 16 then went on to earn degrees in psychology and philosophy. You will, literally, never win a debate or encounter against me lol. I promise you

[@georgedoolittle9015]

The best way to prove this "as true" is through music meaning *ALL OF US* as humans even animals i imagine think in terms of numbers or "math" which by definition has *NOTHING* to do with logic. The entire *DISCIPLINE* of "computer science" presumes "logic" is not at all "logical" in point of fact so no need to make this one complicated as *LITERALLY* "this one ain't adding up" or "using a calculator" for example. *BECAUSE WHERE'S THE LOGIC IN USING MATH MISTER CALCULATOR GUY* is meant as an *ACTUALIZED JOKE* exact *OPPOSITE* of "logic." Another way to "put this" is to try and sing THE Illogical Song or say "satire" or "close your eyes they're LAUGHING at you" for a moment thing. That i give thought does not mean i give *MEANING.*

[@amberbell1497]

You guys are obviously biased, you made a straw man out of the young earth theory then warned against doing that. My theology isn’t based on the literal interpretation of Genesis, but the argument for young earth addresses the science used to date fossils and artifacts. This argument seems to work best with philosophical problems like worldview vs topics you aren’t educated about. Ex: If you believe there is no God, who created the universe? All other theories have to explain the 1st cause except for theism. Believing in an uncreated creator who is outside of time, space, matter explains the beginning of the universe. Then I can give you the evidence for a personal creator with a mind who entered our world to invite His creation into a relationship by way of self sacrificial love. To stubbornly adhere to opinions and prejudices in spite of arguments and reason is a ___?

[@Wabbelpaddel]

Another ridiculous conclusion is when some one fixed given singular mechanism implies a function but also something that is not that function, for example a correct sorting algorithm giving you suddenly a string of texts. Absurd! But god is assumed to be one such mechanism and creates and does many disjoint things, like speaking, knowing, creating. He is X and derives Y and NOT Y. But then he can not be a singular mechanism, he must be made of parts and be contingent on these, which contradicts Abrahamic religions, the pests of mankind.

[@AppleShineWC]

I think people should just use a condom more often if they don’t want a kid •-• And if someone ends up getting pregnant and they don’t want it, I would suggest adoption. If one or both lives are in danger, abortion. If you’re far in the pregnancy, adoption. If it is a child, abortion. Sexual assault, I think in most cases, abortion. Ultimately though, this is just what I would do if I was a woman or were to get pregnant in the future. Ultimately I do believe that *abortion* is a mothers choice. In this video, you’re taking this to the extreme by blowing it out of proportion, which makes your points unfair and makes others views seem ridiculous. No pro-choice advocate is going to want a mother to chug a bottle of wine 8 months into pregnancy. It’s absurd and ridiculous, and the fact that you’re making this point just shows that you’re trying to distract people from the fact that you never gave a clear answer as to whether you’re pro life or pro choice.