Hey I gots a question

[Ando!]

Ok, so a lot of times when I try to argue inductively I end up using this form:

Opponent: Argues position x for several reasons

Me: "You can't infer x for those reasons because those reasons would also entail y! And we both know y is ridiculous!"

(hopefully I'm not being to vague here)

So, in the world of logic is this sort of thing frowned upon and considered immature or is it okay to do (assuming the opponent agrees that y is, in fact, ridiculous.)

[Der Übermensch]

Well, that argument would be a way to try and get opponent to abandon position X, but it is much better to show that X following (Reasons) is a non sequitur, or that his supporting reasons are not valid themselves.

[Ando!]

Well doesn't saying y is absolutely not true also imply that the reasons aren't valid?

[Der Übermensch]

No, because Y is true. It's just that you are saying he disagrees with Y. The danger is that you concede his logic is sound and reasons valid, so if he can prove Y isn't true, you're up **** creek.
Better to attack the structure rather then append it.

[Ando!]

edit ok yeah I see what you mean

there are def. better routes, I agree there

[peeted]

Well showing that your oponents premises result in a contadiction (or just ridiculous conclusion in most normal language argments) is called reductio ad absurdiem and its one of the most important rules of inference.* It is a way of showing that your oponents argument is invalid and i see no reason why its worse than any other way.

[totah]

I bet you're used to pretty constant reductios eh peeted? This is a special message from me, to you, with love: http://youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

[marcus_in_absentia]

Wow I am totally confused at this point.

[peeted]

I bet you're used to pretty constant reductios eh peeted? This is a special message from me, to you, with love: http://youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQIm also confused. Fancy explaning what this is about?

Is it a dig at me for having at one point argued for theism? If so i should probibly make it clear that i am agnostic, close to atheist. And i have been for roughley a year and a half. Im just guessing about that however since the vid seemed to be a dig at theists. Otherwise im just confused since whatever it is its pretty irrelevant to this thread...

[Ando!]

Well showing that your oponents premises result in a contadiction (or just ridiculous conclusion in most normal language argments) is called reductio ad absurdiem and its one of the most important rules of inference.* It is a way of showing that your oponents argument is invalid and i see no reason why its worse than any other way.

hmm ty for this v interesting