Reducto Ad Absurdum... In logic, how does this apply? (in philosophy)?

Question

Couldn't understand it when my friends tried explaining it to me,so perhaps you could, using plain english examples? Thanks.

Answer 1

I grew up with a guy who simplified the probability of the impossible to two options.... with the following Reducto Ad Absurdum Logic...

1) We were playing basketball on an 8-foot basketball hoop on an elementry-school playground...

2) He went about 75-yards sideways from the Basketball-hoop with his back facing the basketball hoop.

3) He said what do you guy's think are my odds in making this shot....

4) We yelled 1%, 3% if your lucky....

5) He yelled back in his defense.... 'I give myself a 50-50 chance.... either I make it or I don't.

Using #5 as a defense, disregarrds all other variables that could of impacted his odds... both for his benefit and against....

Against: what if the Basketball hoop was inside the building and we were all outside of the building.... his odds for missing increase pretty close to 100% of the time, right...

For: what if someone designed some kind of concrete-chute that lead directly to the basketball hoop, where the ball simply has to drop from the end of the chute into the basketball-hoop after rolling in the chute for 75 yards, sideways from the basket....

6) Both for/against examples seem ridiculous... but I do so.. to prove that if you don't take in enough variables for or against something(a list long enough that takes care of at least the major factors, but few enough to be practical), then you reduce Reality to a Geni that may or may not grant your requests from time to time..

7) A lot of people live their life based on the Geni of #6, but wouldn't be better if those people knew how to leverage scientific-principles(friction, speed, wether, etc...) and do so that is in way most beneficial to them with the problem at hand like making a basket from 75-yards out?

8) That's my best take... hope it helps... below you'll find Wikipedida's definition... and the above is my best interpretation of that from my own life experience... best of luck to ya..

Answer 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad...

"In formal logic, reductio ad absurdum is used when a formal contradiction can be derived from a premise, allowing one to conclude that the premise is false. If a contradiction is derived from a set of premises, this shows that at least one of the premises is false; if there are several, other means must be used to determine which ones. Mathematical proofs are sometimes constructed using reductio ad absurdum, by first assuming the opposite of the theorem the presenter wishes to prove, then reasoning logically from that assumption until presented with a contradiction. Upon reaching the contradiction, the assumption is disproved and therefore its opposite, due to the law of excluded middle, must be true."

Answer 3

In formal argumentation it is sometimes valid to use reducto ad absurdum to illustrate that an argument is flawed.

By taking a line of reasoning to the extreme it can be shown that it is absurd.

"Birth control violates the rights of unborn persons and is immoral, abortion is a form of birth control

Abortion is immoral"

This is an example of taking a pro-life line of reasoning and employing reducto ad absurdum.