David...... which bit of 'Reductio ad Absurdum' DON'T you get?
The logic is simple...... if extending the logic of a statement towards its limit shows up any weaknesses, then the logic is questionable.
The classic example of a statement 'denied' by 'Reduction ad Absurdum' is:
'raising income tax rates always brings in more revenue'.
At first glance, that statement SEEMS to make sense....... until you test it to ITS LIMITS!
That DAFT (but often stated!) comment can be SEEN to be ABSURD when taken to it's extreme by thinking about a 110% tax rate. One ounce of thought shows that a 110% tax rate would REDUCE the revenue. No one is goinjg to be willing to work when it COSTS them to work!
Surely, NO ONE is stupid enough to think that a 110% tax rate would bring in MORE revenue than a more reasonable level of tax? That is how one can PROVE that the original statement is TRIPE as we can immediately find a situation which DISPROVES the original statement.
That does NOT means that anyone is SERIOUSLY suggesting a 110% tax rate (..... well.... except for Kudos and MichaelG,.... probably....). It doesn't need ANYONE to propose a 110% tax rate as a SERIOUS suggestion to allow us to USE the CONCEPT of a 110% tax rate! All it requires is for us to consider what would happen IF the tax rate was raised to 110%.
In the same way, I showed that the RPatrese's original statement is based on a falacy simply by extending his point to an EXTREME. It does NOT mean that I have to SUPPORT the idea that children of 13 SHOULD be allowed to use heroin J*U*S*T to use the example in a discussion!
Honestly, mate; if you can't follow this sort of logic then I'm at a loss to know how explain this to you in any better way! It really IS simple, standard, classical 'logic'!
I accept that the likes of Paul CANNOT comprehend such subtleties but, really, YOU are quite capable of this level of theoretical discussion! Basically, if Paul can't 'hit it with a shovel' then it's beyond him, that's NOT the case for you: is it?!
Ian
|
|