« Tactics & Courage |
| Tactics & Christians »
How is "taking the roof off" different from the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum?
Posted by Melinda Penner on February 20, 2009 at 12:45 PM in :Greg Koukl, Apologetics, Tactics | Permalink
Reductio isn't automatically a fallacy. You just bear the burden of proof that you haven't taken the argument into a ridiculous place.
February 20, 2009 at 04:34 PM
Greg should have just said "Taking the roof off" is just another name for reductio ad absurdum and he should have pointed out that whatever you call it, reductio ad absurdum is _not_ a fallacy.
Yes, 'reductio ad absurdum' is a kind of argument where you assume your opponent's point of view as a premise, reach a conclusion that is absurd, and then blame the absurdity on your opponent's point of view.
It's best if your logic and any premises you introduce besides your opponent's point of view must be beyond question.
February 21, 2009 at 02:09 PM
I was a bit disappointed that Greg K. did not point out that reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. Quite a few people confuse reductio ad absurdum with an appeal to ridicule, which it is not. Perhaps, as a philosopher, Greg blocked the word "Fallacy" out of his mind.
March 02, 2009 at 03:03 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.