Reduction ad Absurdum:- a discussion.
Taking ideas to the extreme is usually used to move, or confuse, the argument, which is why I thought you used it so much. It now seems you are arguing it as a relevant logical process.
To work out if a 13 year old should do motor bike racing is a rational and logical process. It is mainly about risk and reward, or thrill, as it has been called in this thread.
If we try to use your two thousand years old 'rules of logic' and bring in your heroin example it doesn’t change the original reasoning it simply changes the subject. The risk and the rewards of taking heroin are totally different. So we could reasonably, and logically, decide one is OK and the other isn't.
Although 2000 years ago it may have seemed a great philosophy, today it is predominantly used by simple people who don't understand logic, or more intelligent people to muddy the waters of logic and reason, for their own gain.
Even in its best use, as in your classic example of tax, it is fairly useless and often only states the obvious. It may show that the statement 'higher taxes brings in more revenue' to be untrue but does nothing to show at what point increased taxes reduces revenue.
At its worst, and most common use, it is b*stardised to show things it doesn’t. We might now have people not allowing their children to race because they wouldn't allow them to take heroin. And have people not raising taxes when evidence and reasoning suggests they should.
So in summary. Euclid: good at making dumper trucks. Logic a bit suspect.
|
|