Difference between revisions of "Argument by contradiction"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(form of naked assertion; address the content)
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
[[thing type::rhetorical deception]]
 
[[thing type::rhetorical deception]]
 
[[thing type::dismissal]]
 
[[thing type::dismissal]]
[[category:rhetorical deceptions]]
+
[[category:rhetorical deception]]
 
</hide>
 
</hide>
 
==About==
 
==About==
Line 18: Line 18:
 
* "I don't accept your hypothesis.": simple contradiction with larger words
 
* "I don't accept your hypothesis.": simple contradiction with larger words
 
* "We don't believe this is true.": argument from authority sprinkled lightly with [[appeal to common belief]]
 
* "We don't believe this is true.": argument from authority sprinkled lightly with [[appeal to common belief]]
 +
==Note==
 +
This might be better described as [[argument by repetition]].

Latest revision as of 12:58, 3 August 2021

About

Argument by contradiction is any form of argument in which the defender simply re-asserts that their position is true without addressing the substance of an attack; as such, it is a form of dismissal. It is basically the use of a naked assertion in response to a counterargument.

As Monty Python once observed:

An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. ... It isn't just saying "no it isn't"!

Deception

An argument by contradiction is often accompanied by some form of prop to make it seem more substantial, in which case it is arguably a form of rhetorical deception.

Examples:

  • "No, you're wrong.": simple contradiction, unless followed by an explanation
  • "Studies show that you're wrong.": argument from authority, unless data from those studies is introduced
  • "I don't accept your hypothesis.": simple contradiction with larger words
  • "We don't believe this is true.": argument from authority sprinkled lightly with appeal to common belief

Note

This might be better described as argument by repetition.