upvote

points

by tgma7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby lapcat7 hours ago|
[-]
> One can logically disprove a theory

You haven't done so.

> reductio ad absurdum

You misunderstand what this is. You suggested in another comment that I test the theory by trying the DFU process, but that is not reductio ad absurdum.

reply
upvoteby tgma7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> You haven't done so.

Theory: "the DFU port seems to be the USB-C port on the right side of the Mac [p], not on the left side."

Reductio ad absurdum: "[p] port R is DFU => [q] we should be able to execute DFU process on port R (and not port L)" We execute DFU on port R and it fails [NOT q], therefore [NOT p], so the theory cannot be correct. QED

reply
upvoteby lapcat7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You can turn every empirical theory into a so-called "reductio ad absurdum" by phrasing the results of empirical tests as a premise in the argument, but that is itself totally absurd and a mockery of the logical idea.
reply
upvoteby tgma6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not a mockery—that is precisely at the core of scientific method. Theory makes predictions (logical implications), and if you empirically find contradictory evidence, the theory is proven incorrect.
reply
upvoteby lapcat6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Theory makes predictions (logical implications), and if you empirically find contradictory evidence, the theory is proven incorrect.

Of course. But again, that is not the form of argumentation known as reductio ad absurdum.

Reductio ad absurdum is not at the core of scientific method. Reductio ad absurdum is used for example in pure, nonempirical mathematics and geometry, and typically starts by assuming the opposite of the conclusion.

reply