Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A simple houserule for martial/caster balance.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8598978" data-attributes="member: 6795602"><p>Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why someone would care about the meanings of words? There's practical reasons to do so. One is the same reason we end up with technical jargon. Imagine if everyone used technically jargon differently (Note: in many ways 'reductio ad absurdum' is technical jargon for logic). Another is the reason most words have their meaning expanded via idiom and analogy and not by outright inversion as in this case of 'reductio ad abusrdum' potentially meaning logical fallacy vs logical argument.</p><p></p><p>And while I agree words don't always need champions, there's times one certain word usages should be championed. There's only one simple way to refer to the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum and confounding that term with an outright inversion of it's meaning isn't helpful to anyone. It started as someones misconception over what reductio ad absurdum actually meant and was amplified via the internet.</p><p></p><p>This is different than a word expanding in meaning due to popular idiom and analogy. You mention the term crusade below and that's precisely how it's meaning was expanded. There's other words today that have undergone and are undergoing the same process and you don't hear me being prescriptive about them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes and it never started meaning 'not a crusade'.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And yet today, people using red and blue in such a way would be doing so incorrectly. That's no different than using reductio ad absurdum incorrectly today.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think it's common, perhaps not rare either. But that usage began via misapplication and misunderstanding. Someone used the word reductio ad absurdum incorrectly and others unknowingly picked up on that incorrect meaning. It just so happens that now the meanings are polar opposites. One is a valid logical argument and the other an invalid logical argument. Surely even an avowed anti-perscriptionist as yourself sees the issue there?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8598978, member: 6795602"] Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why someone would care about the meanings of words? There's practical reasons to do so. One is the same reason we end up with technical jargon. Imagine if everyone used technically jargon differently (Note: in many ways 'reductio ad absurdum' is technical jargon for logic). Another is the reason most words have their meaning expanded via idiom and analogy and not by outright inversion as in this case of 'reductio ad abusrdum' potentially meaning logical fallacy vs logical argument. And while I agree words don't always need champions, there's times one certain word usages should be championed. There's only one simple way to refer to the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum and confounding that term with an outright inversion of it's meaning isn't helpful to anyone. It started as someones misconception over what reductio ad absurdum actually meant and was amplified via the internet. This is different than a word expanding in meaning due to popular idiom and analogy. You mention the term crusade below and that's precisely how it's meaning was expanded. There's other words today that have undergone and are undergoing the same process and you don't hear me being prescriptive about them. Yes and it never started meaning 'not a crusade'. And yet today, people using red and blue in such a way would be doing so incorrectly. That's no different than using reductio ad absurdum incorrectly today. I don't think it's common, perhaps not rare either. But that usage began via misapplication and misunderstanding. Someone used the word reductio ad absurdum incorrectly and others unknowingly picked up on that incorrect meaning. It just so happens that now the meanings are polar opposites. One is a valid logical argument and the other an invalid logical argument. Surely even an avowed anti-perscriptionist as yourself sees the issue there? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A simple houserule for martial/caster balance.
Top