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"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ? , lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]

The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show:

• The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge.
• There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.

The first example argues that denial of the premise would result in a ridiculous conclusion, against the evidence of our senses. The second example is a mathematical proof by contradiction (also known as an indirect proof[7]), which argues that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a "smallest" number and yet there is a number smaller than it).[8]

## Greek philosophy

Reductio ad absurdum was used throughout Greek philosophy. The earliest example of a reductio argument can be found in a satirical poem attributed to Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 570 - c. 475 BCE).[9] Criticizing Homer's attribution of human faults to the gods, Xenophanes states that humans also believe that the gods' bodies have human form. But if horses and oxen could draw, they would draw the gods with horse and ox bodies. The gods cannot have both forms, so this is a contradiction. Therefore, the attribution of other human characteristics to the gods, such as human faults, is also false.

Greek mathematicians proved fundamental propositions utilizing reductio ad absurdum. Euclid of Alexandria (mid-4th - mid-3rd centuries BCE) and Archimedes of Syracuse (c. 287 - c. 212 BCE) are two very early examples.[10]

The earlier dialogues of Plato (424-348 BCE), relating the discourses of Socrates, raised the use of reductio arguments to a formal dialectical method (elenchus), also called the Socratic method.[11] Typically, Socrates' opponent would make what would seem to be an innocuous assertion. In response, Socrates, via a step-by-step train of reasoning, bringing in other background assumptions, would make the person admit that the assertion resulted in an absurd or contradictory conclusion, forcing him to abandon his assertion and adopt a position of aporia.[7] The technique was also a focus of the work of Aristotle (384-322 BCE). [5] The Pyrrhonists and the Academic Skeptics extensively used reductio ad absurdum arguments to refute the dogmas of the other schools of Hellenistic philosophy.

## Buddhist philosophy

Much of Madhyamaka Buddhist philosophy centers on showing how various essentialist ideas have absurd conclusions through reductio ad absurdum arguments (known as prasanga in Sanskrit). In the M?lamadhyamakak?rik?, N?g?rjuna's reductio ad absurdum arguments are used to show that any theory of substance or essence was unsustainable and therefore, phenomena (dharmas) such as change, causality, and sense perception were empty (sunya) of any essential existence. N?g?rjuna's main goal is often seen by scholars as refuting the essentialism of certain Buddhist Abhidharma schools (mainly Vaibhasika) which posited theories of svabhava (essential nature) and also the Hindu Ny?ya and Vai?e?ika schools which posited a theory of ontological substances (dravyatas).[12]

Aristotle clarified the connection between contradiction and falsity in his principle of non-contradiction, which states that a proposition cannot be both true and false.[13][14] That is, a proposition ${\displaystyle Q}$ and its negation ${\displaystyle \lnot Q}$ (not-Q) cannot both be true. Therefore, if a proposition and its negation can both be derived logically from a premise, it can be concluded that the premise is false. This technique, known as indirect proof or proof by contradiction,[7] has formed the basis of reductio ad absurdum arguments in formal fields such as logic and mathematics.

## References

1. ^ "The Definitive Glossary of Higher Mathematical Jargon -- Proof by Contradiction". Math Vault. 2019-08-01. Retrieved .
2. ^ "Reductio ad absurdum | logic". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved .
3. ^ "Definition of REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved .
4. ^ "reductio ad absurdum", Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged (12th ed.), 2014 [1991], retrieved 2016
5. ^ a b c Nicholas Rescher. "Reductio ad absurdum". The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2009.
6. ^ Reductio Ad Absurdum is for example frequently found in Plato's Republic, documenting Socrates' attempts to guide listeners to his conclusions about justice, democracy and friendship. It was also used by the United States Supreme Court when it handed down its ruling in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education. For more, see Reductio Ad Absurdum in Argument.
7. ^ a b c Nordquist, Richard. "Reductio Ad Absurdum in Argument". ThoughtCo. Retrieved .
8. ^ Howard-Snyder, Frances; Howard-Snyder, Daniel; Wasserman, Ryan (30 March 2012). The Power of Logic (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 978-0078038198.
9. ^ Daigle, Robert W. (1991). "The reductio ad absurdum argument prior to Aristotle". Master's Thesis. San Jose State Univ. Retrieved 2012.
10. ^ Joyce, David (1996). "Euclid's Elements: Book I". Euclid's Elements. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Clark University. Retrieved 2017.
11. ^ Bobzien, Susanne (2006). "Ancient Logic". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2012.
12. ^ Wasler, Joseph. Nagarjuna in Context. New York: Columibia University Press. 2005, pgs. 225-263.
13. ^ Ziembi?ski, Zygmunt (2013). Practical Logic. Springer. p. 95. ISBN 978-9401756044.
14. ^ Ferguson, Thomas Macaulay; Priest, Graham (2016). A Dictionary of Logic. Oxford University Press. p. 146. ISBN 978-0192511553.