General Discussion

LostOne4Ever

(9,756 posts)

54. That is not a reductio ad absurdum

Sat Sep 12, 2015, 10:45 PM

Sep 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.[1]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The poster did not try to prove something was true by negating anything and giving impossible results as a consequence. They just followed the reasoning to its logical consequence.

Thus it is not an Reductio ad absurdum.

FURTHER:[/font]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]
Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man. For example, any creationist argument that takes the form of "if evolution were real, we'd see fish turning into monkeys and monkeys turning into people all the time" only serves to ridicule itself, since it mischaracterises the theory of evolution to an extreme degree.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The poster used the argument which were actually present and further did not resort to a strawman. Again, it is not an reductio ad absurdum.[/font]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

145 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study: (Perhaps) Honey isn�t as healthy as we think [View all] HuckleB Sep 2015 OP

Yes, but local honey is effective for helping mitigate pollen based allergies, and studies have peacebird Sep 2015 #1

The pollen claim is false. HuckleB Sep 2015 #3

Which is why I eat what I want yeoman6987 Sep 2015 #11

Granted, there are some things out there that are horrible for you... Salviati Sep 2015 #14

I read a study long ago which said, to paraphrase: bemildred Sep 2015 #91

not true. but it has to be LOCAL honey. when i visited texas. the honey i used for milwaukee only pansypoo53219 Sep 2015 #36

The very first link he gave disproved that LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #37

Perhaps that's why our local honey DOES work for us. It is raw, unprocessed, straight from our hives peacebird Sep 2015 #40

Well if it works for you then keep at it LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #46

And there is no scientific basis for your claim. HuckleB Sep 2015 #105

Do you work for pharma? Look, we use honey, herbs, exercise and organic foods. We no longer need peacebird Sep 2015 #119

Nope. And use of the shill gambit doesn't support scam claims either. HuckleB Sep 2015 #120

If exposure to the pollen that triggers allergies caused immunity ... REP Sep 2015 #44

Good news! You don't have to eat trees to obtain immunity! Buns_of_Fire Sep 2015 #125

Aw crap. I live in a redwood forest. REP Sep 2015 #132

I've found that one can experience pure joy from eating raw honey. cheapdate Sep 2015 #59

And it is fun to ride a bike without a helmet LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #62

I'm a real risk taker. cheapdate Sep 2015 #75

Then more power to you...though I question the nevers you cite :) (nt) LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #77

Risks are everywhere. cheapdate Sep 2015 #81

Anecdotally local honey has worked for our family. We no longer need allergy meds. peacebird Sep 2015 #39

And there is no scientific basis for that claim. Anecdotes are meaningless. HuckleB Sep 2015 #106

Did I say there was scientific basis, no. i said it has worked for us. Snark much? peacebird Sep 2015 #118

In other words, you have met the placebo effect. HuckleB Sep 2015 #121

And I will gladly say goodbye to you! peacebird Sep 2015 #127

You have to make sure that your beliefs are safe from evidence-based challenges! HuckleB Sep 2015 #130

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2015 #123

It totally does get rid of blackheads though... ScreamingMeemie Sep 2015 #2

Jesus, why can't they just let us hold on to our fantasies packman Sep 2015 #4

Don't forget wine and dark chocolate. Cal Carpenter Sep 2015 #6

Not surprising, but honey tastes better than other sweeteners to me. eom MohRokTah Sep 2015 #5

It is processed - pre-digested - by the bees. I understood it to be a very high glycemic index food. RadiationTherapy Sep 2015 #7

Why would anyone believe honey to be healthy? Snobblevitch Sep 2015 #8

Besides sugars, cheapdate Sep 2015 #58

One occurs in nature and HFCS does not. Greybnk48 Sep 2015 #9

And that's why one 'has an aura of purity and naturalness' Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #10

The same can be said for Maple sugar Greybnk48 Sep 2015 #18

I don't know if it's poison but I do know it's not necessary Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #21

The Evidence Supports Artificial Sweeteners Over Sugar LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #50

It doesn't look like stevia was included in the study. Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #65

Totally agree. LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #80

Arsenic and cyanide occur in nature as well. Codeine Sep 2015 #13

I did not say it's necessarily healthy, but it is a food Greybnk48 Sep 2015 #16

Hmm. Chan790 Sep 2015 #30

You eat corn stalks and wood pulp from apple trees? villager Sep 2015 #33

No those things are found in the edible parts of the apple too LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #52

Well sure, "traces" are villager Sep 2015 #68

Correct. What we are talking about an appeal to nature fallacy and As is natural and disproves it nt LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #72

Huh? villager Sep 2015 #73

The post that spawned this subthread was giving a counter example to the appeal to nature fallacy LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #76

Except that no one is claiming that everything that occurs in nature should be eaten villager Sep 2015 #78

I have seen no one make that argument. LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #79

What industrial/corporate food products -- or their attendant pesticides, antibiotics, etc. villager Sep 2015 #82

Does sassafrass oil count? LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #85

Ah, so there's never any conflict of interest, or looking-the-other-way at the FDA. villager Sep 2015 #87

And where did I say that? LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #88

Arsenic is contained in most of the things you eat and drink Major Nikon Sep 2015 #92

HFCS metabolizes exactly the same as sucrose because it is the same thing Thor_MN Sep 2015 #99

They aren't the same! Major Nikon Sep 2015 #116

No doubt, thanks. workinclasszero Sep 2015 #112

Who precisely is stating that as such? LanternWaste Sep 2015 #134

Ahh, the naturalistic fallacy. X_Digger Sep 2015 #17

Sulphur is not food. Your argument is a strawman Greybnk48 Sep 2015 #19

Here's a natural food.. berries! X_Digger Sep 2015 #20

Ah, the reductio ad absurdum argument Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #22

I'm responding at the same level as the poster who thinks 'natural food' = good! X_Digger Sep 2015 #24

I don't think I'm the simpleton here n.t. Greybnk48 Sep 2015 #35

Oh, I get it. Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #67

Children often predicate their own actions on those of others LanternWaste Sep 2015 #135

That is not a reductio ad absurdum LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #54

The argument was citing items contrary to the natural-is-better argument Gormy Cuss Sep 2015 #66

I must disagree the argument went like this LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #71

It is found in plenty of food LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #48

I think you mean an "Appeal to Nature" fallacy. LostOne4Ever Sep 2015 #47

*nod* Keyboard got ahead of my head. Thx. n/t X_Digger Sep 2015 #74

There's more to it than that, even. Ilsa Sep 2015 #141

You can't get fresher or more natural ryan_cats Sep 2015 #12

How about Flying Squirrel Sep 2015 #49

Another one in regards to insulin response, is bottle down agave touted as a natural Person 2713 Sep 2015 #15

Bee poop. bemildred Sep 2015 #23

Well, more like bee vomit, but yep. n/t X_Digger Sep 2015 #25

It's been in there and came out again. bemildred Sep 2015 #27

I keep bees in my back yard Mojorabbit Sep 2015 #42

I like bees too. bemildred Sep 2015 #90

When I buy locally produced Honey I know what I'm getting.... daleanime Sep 2015 #26

And yet whether you know it or not you're getting pretty much the same thing Major Nikon Sep 2015 #97

Only if you place the same value on bee's and machine's..... daleanime Sep 2015 #98

So what is the carbon cost of local honey? Major Nikon Sep 2015 #100

Awwww, you got..... daleanime Sep 2015 #101

How do you know it's less? Major Nikon Sep 2015 #102

Well, first is transportation cost, the closer the better..... daleanime Sep 2015 #104

Closer isn't necessarily better, so there's your first mistake Major Nikon Sep 2015 #110

Nothing is better for you than honey because Monsanto is evil Orrex Sep 2015 #28

Thank God bee populations are actually healthy and thriving! villager Sep 2015 #34

I remember when we were blaming cell phones. Orrex Sep 2015 #41

I still blame cell phones DavidDvorkin Sep 2015 #43

I'm sorry to inform you..You're going straight to hell for that. BlueJazz Sep 2015 #55

Evidently, no one and nothing is responsible in your book. villager Sep 2015 #70

Responsible for what? HuckleB Sep 2015 #109

Keep on digging, HuckleB villager Sep 2015 #113

Why do you hate bees? Major Nikon Sep 2015 #115

Honey is dangerous for infants HassleCat Sep 2015 #29

I just posted this but yours is much more informative. I will delete mine. Hollingsworth Sep 2015 #32

This message was self-deleted by its author Hollingsworth Sep 2015 #31

Neither one is good for me. Diabetes oneshooter Sep 2015 #38

I posted the basic information the study validated quite a while ago. Ms. Toad Sep 2015 #45

Honey tasste better edhopper Sep 2015 #51

Honey has too much GMO in it RobertEarl Sep 2015 #53

The vast majority of commercial honey comes from clover Major Nikon Sep 2015 #94

All that the study showed, cheapdate Sep 2015 #56

I keep a jar of Manuka honey 840high Sep 2015 #69

Never had any. We love honey in my house. cheapdate Sep 2015 #83

Makes sense. Sugar is sugar. The problem with HFCS is that it's in so many things. Marr Sep 2015 #57

And far too salty, too. nt awoke_in_2003 Sep 2015 #60

Sugar is not sugar. SlipperySlope Sep 2015 #142

Everyone knows you hate bees! Rex Sep 2015 #61

Y'all go right on ahead and eat your poison, and I'll stick with my natural diet that has Zorra Sep 2015 #63

I like a little bit of honey in my tea. StevieM Sep 2015 #84

I suspect the reward is countering the irrational nonsense of people who call things "poison" Major Nikon Sep 2015 #95

don't kid us, we know you are one of the immortals!! yuiyoshida Sep 2015 #103

Pointless anecdotes are hyperbole are so awesome! HuckleB Sep 2015 #108

I'll stick with honey. (no pun intended) icymist Sep 2015 #64

people thought Honey was Healthy ? JI7 Sep 2015 #86

Yes Major Nikon Sep 2015 #107

There is so much riding on keeping pesticides Mojorabbit Sep 2015 #114

Honey is more healthy fadedrose Sep 2015 #117

What? HuckleB Sep 2015 #122

I never eat candy bars so that makes them healthier than almonds Major Nikon Sep 2015 #124

Seriously, you think people are going to switch from honey to HFCS? bwahahahaha! djean111 Sep 2015 #89

"No nutritional value at all" Major Nikon Sep 2015 #96

There is sucrose for energy. No vitamins, no minerals, nothing that cannot be gotten from djean111 Sep 2015 #126

Carbohydrates are a macronutrient and half to most of your calories should come from them Major Nikon Sep 2015 #128

I am almost 70, extremely active. Lately, been walking to the grocery store, almost three miles djean111 Sep 2015 #129

Really I could care less if anyone eats road apples Major Nikon Sep 2015 #133

In other words, evidence means nothing to you. HuckleB Sep 2015 #131

It's pure sugar gollygee Sep 2015 #93

Honey = sugar workinclasszero Sep 2015 #111

Interesting, but a controlled study of people randomized to HFCS or honey would be needed. Avalux Sep 2015 #136

You mean like the study in the OP? HuckleB Sep 2015 #137

Thank you. Avalux Sep 2015 #138

Moderation is always the key. HuckleB Sep 2015 #139

Whole fruits over anything else, any day. Avalux Sep 2015 #140

Equal amounts will cause equal problems, Dorian Gray Sep 2015 #143

Moderation of either would be fine. HuckleB Sep 2015 #144

That's essentially what I said... Dorian Gray Sep 2015 #145