Review roundup: New iMac display and redesigned chassis shine, audio a step back - Page 5

 

Actually, I'm claiming that you could make yourself not ignorant in less time than it took you to write your last post. I'm pleading with you to do so. But, here, I'll help you along since you apparently have an aversion to search engines:

 

Here's an explanation of reductio ad absurdum: http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/

 

Here's an article with a list of 208 fallacies, which you should note does not contain reductio ad absurdum: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

 

It's good reading for everyone, but I particularly recommend it to you. If you want more sources, do some simple searches and you'll find more than anyone has time to read. But, even consulting, say, the first page of results, you'll find that reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argument, not a fallacy.

Nope, you told me to educate myself, which implies that I'm ignorant.


I see nothing in there stating that it can not be a fallacy, so how does that prove your point?


Since when have all fallacies have to be confined to the set of common patterns in that list? It's kind of the third time I'm pointing this out, but you seem to keep ignoring it for some reason... At most with that list you can try to prove that something IS a fallacy, but you can not try to prove that something is NOT, which is your claim.


No, actually what I want is actual proof of your claims, which none of the above is.

 

 

Apparently you have no sense of humor, either.

 

 

Well, that's a list of recognized fallacies. But, you are right, not being on the list doesn't mean something isn't a fallacy. On the other hand, if you are claiming something, reductio ad absurdum in this case, is a fallacy, despite no one recognizing it as such (but yourself, of course), the onus is on you to prove it is, not me to prove it's not. Have at it. I'll get some popcorn.

Does anybody know if the GPU and/or CPU are throttled down on these iMacs?

 

I've been looking at the retina MBPs, and there are lots of people saying that their GPUs are throttled down to 70-80% of their manufacturer's standard specs - probably due to the aesthetics/design of the casing making heat a serious problem.

 

With the thin size and heavy reliance on glue in the new iMacs, can we expect that Apple again has neutered the hardware in favour of aesthetics? I'm actually interested in replacing my '09 iMac, but am a bit leery about paying for current hardware that's been throttled so that it more resembles year-old or 2-year-old hardware...

 

I bet the GPU is, at least in the lower models. They've done that many times before. The CPU specifically overclocks itself, so there'd be no reason to downclock it.

I have already demonstrated why in those cases it is a fallacy. It is not recognized as a fallacy as a general rule, because it's not always a fallacy; that, however, doesn't mean it is never a fallacy. I did state examples of reduction to absurdity as a fallacy when used in straw man arguments or non-sequitors such as inferences from the particular to the statistical, and sometimes even from the particular to the particular without establishing the parallel through the general (flawed analogies).

 

Reductio ad absurdum is never a fallacy, it's a specific, valid, method of argument. The straw man fallacy isn't a fallacious argument because it involves using a reductio method of argument. It's fallacious because it involves applying what may be a perfectly valid argument to a position that isn't actually the position you are attempting to refute, but is represented as the same. An instance of a straw man fallacy doesn't even have to involve a reductio argument.