Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ad absurdo, or the horse laugh) [1] is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
Reductio ad absurdum, painting by John Pettie exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1884. In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity") or apagogical argument, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.
Appeal to ridicule – mocking or stating that the opponent's position is laughable to deflect from the merits of the opponent's argument. [82] Appeal to spite – generating bitterness or hostility in the listener toward an opponent in an argument. [83] Judgmental language – using insulting or pejorative language in an argument.
In philosophical argument, the appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh [18]) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced ...
Appeal to ridicule; S. Appeal to spite; T. Think of the children; Appeal to tradition; W. Wisdom of repugnance; Wishful thinking This page was last edited on 29 May ...
A clown wearing a hat of a ridiculously small and incongruous size. The ridiculous often has extreme incongruity (things that are not thought to belong next to each other) or inferiority, e.g., "when something that was dignified is reduced to a ridiculous position (here noting the element of the incongruous), so that laughter is most intense when we escape from a 'coerced solemnity'."
This kind of appeal to emotion is irrelevant to or distracting from the facts of the argument (a so-called "red herring") and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.
Additionally, the appeal to the stone technique is often paired with other logical fallacies that restrict the ability to further dialogue. [11] Participants presenting an appeal to the stone argument may use ad-hominem attacks [12] to avoid the discussion’s topic, or may pair it with a straw-man argument to discredit the other participant. [13]