A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
ch'ang said:I am famliar with ad absurdum, and no it is not perfectly vaild, and because I am feeling that lazy I found a site to explain why instead of me haveing to type it. http://jordan.fortwayne.com/ns/editorial/apig/apig4.php see point 15 and 8.
And may I ask what you meant by this?
Quoting from the reference that you provided above...
15. Argumentum Ad Absurdum (arguing the absurd extreme)
Trying to prove or disprove an argument by projecting the consequences as far as you possibly can -- this is "slippery slope" gone wildly out of control. As in: "I really should buy a lottery ticket. I might win that $15,000 prize. Then I can buy that hot car I've been looking at. Then old Greely will see me driving and realize I'm a winner and give me that promotion he's been stalling on. Then Linda will finally notice me, and we'll get married and work hard and live happily ever after and ... Oops. I just remembered that the odds on the lottery are a zillion to one."
===
I am not carrying your stupid philosophy to the absurd extreme. You claim that the train does not exist, which is absurd in and of itself. If you can give substance to the universe by your observation, standing in front of a train is a perfectly reasonable experiment to prove the stupidity of your claims.