Refutation - SpeedyLook encyclopedia

Scopes of application

The refutation applies in all the fields where the question of the Of knowing is important: that it is a question in Religion of of knowing what God asks to the men, in Philosophie to know if God can exist, in Astronomie of what the planets are made, in Géométrie which are the properties of the triangle, in Politique if one needs privatiser or to nationalize a company. Everywhere where there is Argumentation to justify a knowledge, there is also Discussion certainty of this knowledge, in other words against-argumentation or refutation. When the discussion deepens or envenime, it will not be rare to witness refutations of refutations when the evidence suggested to show the falseness of a proposal are in their turn refuted (one calls objection , a simple refutation and authority the refutation of a refutation or the refutation of an answer to an objection).

The degree of Abstraction and rigor of these refutations will vary naturally according to the capacity of retreat of the speakers compared to their emotions and personal interests, but also according to whether the discipline where these discussions take place lend more or less to a sharp emotional investment. Also a mathematical refutation will resemble only little a refutation in policy, but the logical bases remain at least in the principles of these fields the same ones since Aristote: a cat is a cat (identity principle), it is impossible to affirm a thing and its opposite at the same time (principle of noncontradiction), all that exists must have a cause or nothing can exist without cause (principle of sufficient reason) etc

Forms of refutation

With the logical direction, a refutation is known as direct if it calls into question the Prémisse S of a reasoning or indirect if in fact the logical consequences of the proposal to be refuted are used to show its impossibility or its nonsense. It can also be valid if it rigorously complies with the rules of sophistical logic or if on the contrary it respects them only seemingly.

Direct refutation

valid Procédés

the refutation of the contents of a premise consists in showing its falseness by a counterexample or its contradiction with other already shown proposals. That is to say for example the Syllogism " All that is rare is expensive, but a cheap horse is rare, therefore a cheap horse is cher" : it is necessary that all that is rare either expensive since a horse can at the same time not be expensive and be rare.
refutation of the form of a reasoning : denunciation of Petitio principii, Ambiguity, Argument of authority and others Sophism S exploiting the form of the reasoning rather than on the bottom.
refutation of the sequence of a reasoning : denunciation of Not sequitur.

sophistical Procédés

Distorts refutation of the contents of a premise : one makes say to this different premise thing, of approaching and more general, in order to oppose more easily to him of the counterexamples, other commonly allowed proposals or other sophistical processes.
Refutation of authority : as in the Argument of authority, one uses the dires of a recognized authority, not to affirm a proposal but to deny it.
Use of pejorative connotations , reformulation in hateful form of the unfavourable thesis (see Argumentum AD odium) or abusive use of pejorative terms to qualify it in general ( It is Fascism, racism, extremism …)
personal Attack : one is caught some with the author of the thesis rather than to the thesis itself to suggest that before even the premises, their author is false or odious in itself (cf Attaque AD hominem).
To make pass a premise too subtly different from the conclusion for a petition of principle.

Indirect refutation

valid Procédés

the counterexample is the indirect mode of refutation more running. That is to say for example the assertion " All the birds can steal their clean ailes" , the example of the Autruche will be enough to show that this proposal is false or to moderate. It is an indirect process because in fact the Prémisse S are used to deny this proposal but its consequence, in our example, the refutation could be clarified in the following way: if all the birds can fly, then the ostrich is not a bird but it is well a bird, therefore it is false to say that all the birds can steal . If only one example is not enough to prove the validity of a general rule, it is enough to only one counterexample to prove that a general rule is false.
the apagogy (reasoning by the absurdity) consists in showing that the thesis leads to absurd consequences, in contradiction with other obvious or already shown theses. With the difference of the reductio ad absurdum positive, which is used to justify its position indirectly, one is satisfied here to show the falseness of a thesis.

sophistical Procédés

the false counterexample consists in opposing a particular case which does not correspond exactly to the proposal that one proposes to refute. It is in particular the case when one extends the general information wrongly from it: for example, with the " proposal; the men all are equal in rights " , the contradictor answers, being unaware of the nuance in rights : " if it were true, then my neighbor would not be taller than moi".
Distorts apagogy : confusion between what is logically impossible and what is simply unpleasant (e.g. If it were necessary to prefer truth with the lie, one would lose all our illusions ) or caricatures possible consequences of a thesis ( If the parents of pupils must take part in the educational life of the college, then one of soon will require them to make the courses ) (see Argumentum AD consequentiam).

References

Aristote , sophistical Refutations;
Schopenhauer , art to be right always ;
Imre Lakatos Evidence and Réfutations , Test on the Logic of the mathematical discovery. Translation of the English edition of 1976, and annotations, of NR. Balacheff and J.M. Laborde, ED. Hermann, Paris 1984.

See too

Random links:

Meta-Wiki | Keratectomy | Saint-Melaine | Wirecard | List episodes of Grey' S Anatomy