Reductio ad absurdum is an argumentative technique where a speaker uses logical steps to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion to prove an original premise is wrong. It can work for or against people, but it presupposes an absolutist response to every situation, which can be problematic. Other rhetorical techniques can play on reductio ad absurdum, and people can cry foul when this tactic is used against them.
Reductio ad absurdum is a Latin phrase meaning “to reduce to the absurd”, referring to an argumentative technique. When someone uses this tactic in a debate, the person uses a series of logical steps to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion and argues that an original premise must be wrong because of the conclusion. This technique can work for and against people; sometimes, it allows a speaker to squash a claim made by the opposition, and other times, it makes someone’s position seem poor because reductio ad absurdum seems like a fallacious argument.
In an example of how such an argument might work, a person might say something like “speed limit laws are important because all vehicles must follow them and this keeps the road safer.” An opponent might point out that ambulances are exempt from speed laws in emergencies, so the original statement is incorrect, because part of it, “all vehicles must follow them” is not true. In this case, bystanders would likely consider the reasoning flawed, because there’s a compelling reason for emergency vehicles to ignore speed laws to reach people in need.
People can use this technique to try and make a position look extreme or ridiculous. Someone may take a statement favorable to an opponent’s cause for the purpose of making an argument, and go through a series of seemingly reasonable claims to end up with an outrageous conclusion in a reductio ad absurdum. The person would point to the ridiculous end of the logical chain to argue that the original claim is false or has significant flaws.
One of the key problems with reductio ad absurdum is that it presupposes an absolutist response to every situation. Many people in casual debates agree that there are often exceptions to the rules, and for almost any claim, people can provide compelling evidence to point out a single exception. If every statement could be made completely false with such arguments, people would be left with little argument to go on. Allowing for flexibility in certain situations will allow people to engage with the gist of what someone is arguing, rather than trying to reduce claims to nonsense.
Numerous rhetorical techniques can play on the reductio ad absurdum and people can cry foul when this tactic is used against them. People may try to walk back through the logic a person uses to reach the absurd end point, in hopes of finding something to debunk before the person reaches an inevitable conclusion.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
