# Reductio ad absurdum vs. argument by lack of imagination?

A reductio ad absurdum is a correct way to argue. An argument by lack of imagination is an informal fallacy. But if a reductio ad absurdum is applied outside of a highly formalized setting like mathematics, how do we distinguish it from an argument by lack of imagination?May 2, 2018

Contents

## What is wrong with reductio ad absurdum?

Someone who makes a reductio ad absurdum fallacy doesn’t go on to attack the other position, though, because it’s so absurd the audience can dismiss it without counter-argument. Someone committing the straw person fallacy does go ahead an refute the other argument to appear to have a strong argument of his or her own.

## Is reductio ad absurdum a valid argument?

Reductio ad Absurdum is clearly a valid argument form. Yet logicians tend in their writings either to ignore it or to treat it in a confusing and confused way.

## What is a reductio ad absurdum argument examples?

I see so that's reductio ad absurdum in a nutshell. It is reducing your opponent's argument to the absurd. By pushing the premises and conclusions to their logical limits or likewise strengthening

## What is reductio ad absurdum give four examples?

Essentially, the argument is reduced to its absurdity. This works only if there is faulty logic in the argument to begin with. Examples of Reductio Ad Absurdum: In a location where there is a sign saying not to pick the flowers, a small child says to his mother, “It’s just one flower.”

## What is reductio ad absurdum and how can it be used to argue against relativism?

The most common responses to relativism come in the form of what is called a reductio ad absurdum—a form of argument meant to disprove a view by showing us the difficult or absurd (hence the name) conclusions that the view being responded to would lead to.

## What proof type is reductio ad absurdum?

A form of the reductio ad absurdum argument, known as indirect proof or reductio ad impossibile, is one that proves a proposition by showing that its denial conjoined with other propositions previously proved or accepted leads to a contradiction.