You're Being Absurd! Two Powerful Tools for Philosophical Argumentation
It’s the sort of general purpose crowbar of rational argument where you take your opponent's premises and deduce something absurd from them.
A tool that everybody should be familiar with and, in fact, people use it all the time, is reductio ad absurdum arguments. It’s the sort of general purpose crowbar of rational argument where you take your opponent's premises and deduce something absurd from them. That is, you deduce a contradiction officially.
We use it all the time without paying much attention to it. You may say something like "If he gets here in time for supper, he’ll have to fly like Superman" - which his absurd. Nobody can fly that fast. You don’t even bother spelling it out. You point out that something that somebody imagined or proposed has a ridiculous consequence. So then you go back and throw out one of the premises – whichever one is applicable.
So that’s been known and named for several millennia, and as I say, it’s the workhorse of philosophical argumentation. And it has a partner which is a rhetorical questions. If you look closely you’ll see that rhetorical questions are almost always just shortened reductio ad absurdum arguments. They imply a reductio. When you ask a rhetorical question with that sort of yucky, sneery way, you’re saying, "Wouldn’t that be ridiculous. I don’t have to pause for a moment to refute that." You ask the question and you don’t expect it to be answered because the answer would be embarrassing.
One of the tools that I suggest in my book is to use that fact to find the weakness in a lot of arguments. When someone uses a reductio or uses a rhetorical question, they are, in effect, saying this isn’t worth your time or mine to look at closely. This is so obvious I can just make a sort of joke out of it. Pause. Be obstreperous and take a good look at it and see if you can answer it. Sometimes just answer the rhetorical question. Ask, “Why not? I think I can actually answer this." And this is a great way of upsetting the apple cart sometimes.
In Their Own Words is recorded in Big Think's studio.
Image courtesy of Shutterstock.
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
A new study explores how certain personality traits affect individuals' attitudes on obesity in others.
- The study compared personality traits and obesity views among more than 3,000 mothers.
- The results showed that the personality traits neuroticism and extraversion are linked to more negative views and behaviors related to obesity.
- People who scored high in conscientiousness are more likely to experience "fat phobia.
The rise of anti-scientific thinking and conspiracy is a concerning trend.
- Fifty years later after one of the greatest achievements of mankind, there's a growing number of moon landing deniers. They are part of a larger trend of anti-scientific thinking.
- Climate change, anti-vaccination and other assorted conspiratorial mindsets are a detriment and show a tangible impediment to fostering real progress or societal change.
- All of these separate anti-scientific beliefs share a troubling root of intellectual dishonesty and ignorance.
The history of the Geneva Conventions tells us how the international community draws the line on brutality.
- Henry Dunant's work led to the Red Cross and conventions on treating prisoners humanely.
- Four Geneva Conventions defined the rules for prisoners of war, torture, naval and medical personnel and more.
- Amendments to the agreements reflect the modern world but have not been ratified by all countries.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.