Talk:Appeal to ridicule/Archives/2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Appeal to ridicule. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Questionable example
Is the statment
"If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier. That's crazy!"
really an appeal to ridicule? My understanding of the general relativity ( which I'll admit is only very basic ) is that the claim the car gets shorter and heavier is in fact true, albeit only be a miniscule ammount. Astaroth5 15:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it is, since it follows the definition of appeal to ridicule given in the article. It presents Einstein's theory in a way which seems ridiculous to the audience. Rbarreira 16:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly so. An appeal to ridicule doesn't necessarily need to lie, it just needs to make something seem bizarre or counterintuitive, often through rhetorical devices. -Silence 16:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, point taken, it is a valid example, guess I've just been working in science/engineering too long cause I accept such statment as reasonable! :-) Astaroth5 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I know exactly what you mean ;) Rbarreira 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- "If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your grandfather was a gorilla!". While this statement seems to be appealing to ridicule, it's also false. I think a correct but ridiculous statement (like the relativity one) would be a better example, any suggestions? Shinglor 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, there's something I'm not sure how to change - In the list of logical fallacies at the bottom of the page, Evidence of Absence is listed even though that isn't a fallacy. Does somebody know how to fix that? 94.193.214.30 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist
I would like to see someone incorporate a section demonstrating how the phrase "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to..." (or some similar phrase) is an example of Appeal to Ridicule. I tried to do it myself but I didn't feel my example was professional enough, but I might add it back if no one else gives one I think is better. Mal7798 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Think 'it doesn't take a rocket scientist to ...' may be an example of ad hominem, or a borderline case. Interested in what others think though. Donnachadh (talk)
socialism
"Nobody believes in socialism after college! Grow up." well, it depends. Maybe we should ask pensioners what they think of socialism :D <= In your face(tm) Ren Sydrick (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This quotation was vandalised and I reverted it. It's now been vandalised again. I haven't reverted it, because I don't want to get into an edit war. Can we find a less controversial example to use? 86.7.30.217 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Tigers? Really?
I don't get the joke, but I assume there is one. Humans most certainly did not evolve from tigers, nor have I ever before heard anyone claim that the theory of evolution states this. Unless there's a really funny joke here that I'm the only one not getting this should be changed. Actually it should be changed anyway so I don't accidentally believe it next time I read it ;)
OlaIsacsson (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There, all better. :)
Were or was?
I noticed the third edit to this page was to change "If the theory of evolution was true" to "If the theory of evolution were true". I know this use of "were", in line with "as it were" and "if I were you", is commonplace but is it correct? Should it not be "was" as it was to begin with?
OlaIsacsson (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, never mind. I guess it is correct... It's supposed to be "were" - 3rd person past subjunctive singular. (Right?) I'll just let this comment remain if anyone else should be confused too :)
Why conflate Reductio ad ridiculum with Reductio ad absurdum?
Why has this wiki entry of Reductio ad ridiculum all of a sudden been conflated with Reductio ad absurdum? Reductio ad ridiculum is almost the exact opposite of Reductio ad absurdum.
Reductio ad ridiculum is a fallacious underhanded technique used to gain favor with a sophomoric groupthink mentality to attack the messenger with pejoratives and Ad hominem attacks instead of actually addressing the messenger's arguments. Reductio ad ridiculum is a logical fallacy period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.148.181 (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)