In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]
The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show:
The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge.
There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof by contradiction (also known as an indirect proof[7]), which argues that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a "smallest" number and yet there is a number smaller than it).[8]>YUGE SOY DUES FAGS
>>8507135 >Examples of chiasmus and its subtype antimetabole >>8507113 >antimetabole >>8507072 >Epanalepsis >>8507062 >Anadiplosis
>>8507034 >Anadiplosis >>8506990 >polysyllogism >>8506947 >The Epimenides paradox >>8506898 >circulus in probando >>8506874 >Begging or assuming the point at issue consists
>>8506852 >>8506840 >Self-refuting ideas or self-defeating ideas >>8506817 >jew noddle goals >>8506787 >rub your jew noodles on it
>>8506761 >begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
>>8506740 >[petitio principii] >>8506701 >Complex question fallacy >Further information: Loaded question
>>8506669 misleading discourse involves presupposing and implying something without stating it explicitly, by phrasing it as a question
>>8506647 >presupposition >>8506608 getting those hobbits to mordor 2020 >>8506575 >Presupposition triggers >>8506557 >Projection of presuppositions
>>8506542 >presupposition (or PSP) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse