Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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") or apagogical arguments, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.
Herbert Broom′s text of 1858 on legal maxims lists the phrase under the heading ″Rules of logic″, stating: Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself. [9] ceteris paribus: with other things the same More commonly rendered in English as "All other things being equal."
The following pages contain lists of legal terms: List of Latin legal terms; List of legal abbreviations; List of legal abbreviations (canon law) on Wiktionary: Appendix: English legal terms; Appendix: Glossary of legal terms
According to Aristotle, the idea of a man being unable to persuade someone by his words is absurd. [9] Any unnecessary information to the case is unreasonable and makes the speech unclear. If the speech becomes too unclear; the justification for their case becomes unpersuasive, making the argument absurd. [10]
In other words, a statute is to be read word for word and is to be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd. Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, technical terms are given their technical meaning, and ...
OPINION: Unlike Jake Paul, Getting hit by Mike Tyson in any way at any time is on the list of things I hope to never happen in life. Editor’s note: The following article is an op-ed, and the ...
Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation.
[1] There are examples of judges both applying and rejecting use of the rule under similar facts. [2] The rule is typically bound by "common sense" [ 3 ] and is flexible enough to avoid application that "would involve an absurdity, do violence to the plain intent of the language, or if the context for other reason requires a deviation from the ...