An appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy where a statement is belittled as absurd. It’s not a valid argument and doesn’t introduce new information. Look for keywords like “silly” and “ridiculous.” It’s different from a reductio ad absurdum, which can be useful in illustrating the weakness of a point.
An appeal to ridicule is a common type of logical fallacy. Being able to spot it in discussions will help you defend yourself, and avoiding it will make you a much stronger communicator and speaker. The problem with most logic errors is that they are very tempting to use, because many of them are effective, especially against a weaker opponent. However, an appeal to ridicule can easily be dismissed by the person using it, if someone is sharp enough to spot it and jump on it.
In an appeal for ridicule, a person belittles a statement by suggesting it is absurd. The teasing of the claim, in theory, reduces the power of him. However, an appeal to ridicule does not take the form of a valid or useful argument, because it does not introduce new information or concrete discussion into the debate. There are numerous examples of appealing to ridicule, but they all more or less take the form of “X is silly, so x is false.” Often, an appeal to ridicule uses a straw man, a weak argument created by the opposition and attributed to the defence. A straw man is easy for the opposition to debunk, and an unwary defender may not be aware of how his words or his position have been twisted to create a straw man.
For example, in a discussion about whether or not children should be tested for hearing on a regular basis, a weak arguer might say, “Hearing tests are stupid,” making an appeal for ridicule that sidesteps the real issue. Such an obvious illustration of the logic involved shows how invalid an argument using an appeal to ridicule can be. An appeal to ridicule makes fun of the topic, but not the person who asked it. In a real argument, of course, your opponent is likely to be more sneaky, so look for keywords like fatuous, silly, ridiculous, crazy, and others that suggest the person is belittling your statement, rather than addressing it.
In an ad hominem attack, someone attacks the person who is arguing, which might be the case with someone who says, “I guess someone like you would have no idea how difficult it actually is.” An ad hominem attack suggests that the person making the argument is unqualified, or not worthy of attention, and is generally considered a sneaky debating technique.
The type of logic represented by an appeal to ridicule is not to be confused with a reductio ad absurdum, an argumentative technique that separates a statement and illustrates a potential contradiction that could arise if the statement were true. This “reduction to the absurd” can sometimes be a useful way of illustrating the weakness of a point. It can also be used to distract people from the content of a complaint. However, a reductio ad absurdum usually begins with a full stop, rather than a tease.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
