June Letter from the Editor
by Kelsey Wagner | Editor-in-Chief
The following article appeared in the print issue of Ponca City Monthly magazine, which includes hyperlocal stories about Ponca City. Get full access to all online articles, videos, and content by becoming a paid subscriber. We offer free and paid subscription plans. Find rack locations to pick up your free print copy here, or subscribe here to get online access plus exclusive content.
I love to learn, and so, it’s always fun to me when I learn an entirely new concept that I can apply to my life. It’s impossible for one person to know everything, so we all go through life doing the very best we can to gather knowledge and apply it in a logical way to better the world around us.
The concept I learned wasn’t entirely new to me, as I’ve unknowingly used this concept before in logic and reasoning. However, what I learned was the name of the concept and that it is a well-defined method of argumentation. Let me explain.
“Reductio ad absurdum, which translates to ‘reduction to absurdity,’ is a method of argument where an argument is disproven by showing that its logical conclusion leads to a ridiculous or absurd outcome. This approach proves a proposition by demonstrating that its opposite leads to an illogical or absurd result. Essentially, it argues that if a statement is true, it leads to an absurd or contradictory conclusion, therefore, the statement must be false.”
Here are a few examples:
1. On Skipping Practice Because You Already “Know the Basics”
Claim: “I don’t need to practice—I already know how to play.”
Reductio: By that logic, a baseball team should cancel all their practices once they learn the rules. No more batting drills, no more fielding grounders—just show up and hope muscle memory handles it. Before long, your shortstop forgets where second base is, and your outfield is using mitts to swat mosquitoes.
Conclusion: Knowing how something works isn’t the same as doing it well—practice keeps us sharp.
2. On Taking Too Many “Free” Items
Claim: “It’s okay for one person to take the entirety of complimentary items since they are marked as free.”
Reductio: If that were true, then it would be acceptable to take every complimentary mint at a restaurant, every pen at a bank, or empty the candy bowl on Halloween—because they’re “free.” If this were the case, nothing would be free anymore because people would stop offering them.
Conclusion: The idea breaks down when taken to its extreme—just because something is free doesn’t mean it’s okay to take all of it.
It’s a fascinating way to take something - a behavior, an idea, a concept that someone is arguing is okay - but because they are viewing it as an isolated practice - they don’t see how that behavior, if done by everyone, could actually lead to disaster.
So, the next time someone says, “I think I should be allowed to do this,” or “I don’t think I should have to do this,” use this logical argument with that person, and maybe, just maybe, it will help them understand the absurdity of their argument.
➡️ Opt in or out of different newsletters on your “My Account” page.
➡️ Learn more about Ponca City Monthly+
Ponca City Monthly is a locally owned publication that delivers hyperlocal news in print and online.
Like what we are doing? Feel free to forward this along and tell a friend.
Sponsorship information/customer service: email editor@poncacitymonthly.com