Talk:Argumentum a fortiori

message: In earlier versions of the article Paul was mentioned as an example for a rhetoric usage of the phrase without concrete quote. With a re-write by Wahrmund (15:42, 29 July 2013) this made it into the main text, now making it sound like a valid logical example of the argument. (to my mind at least)
While it may be true that Paul attempted that sort of argument, I don't think it serves as a very good example of it, as it is clearly fallacious.
I think the previous paragraph was more useful, in pointing out that it is used as a rhetoric device, mentioning Paul as an example for this.
Thialfihar (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible example questionable 

message: The first example in the Usage section is hard to parse.  I had to read it a few times to figure out what it was trying to say and even then I wished there was a chart or something. Currently it reads, "For example, if a scientist observes certain phenomena to be present in conjunction a given percentage of the time, they may make the argument that each of the individual phenomena will a fortiori be present a greater percentage of the time (because the latter figures, but not the former, will include the occasions on which a given phenomenon is present but one or more of the others are not)." I recommend that the example should be concrete rather than abstract to make comprehension easier. I'd do it, but I'm not quite sure I understand it well enough to do it justice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.180.50 (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been improvements since the above comments, but one very strange omission was the fact that it's a Latin phrase. I've added that. ~ CZeke (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First example is convoluted 

message: I disagree with what is said that i Islamic law argumentum a fortiori is used like "reasoning by analogy". These two are different law techniques for interpretation of a Law. The analogy is made usally to make connection between two different spheres of law so the non-existent, provisions in one is substituted by very similar existing provisions of the other. It's inadmissible in the public law (e.g. penal law) but quite frequent in civil law. A fortiori interpretation, on the other hand, means usually that what is iperative to the stronger (higher, bigger), is quite so for the weaker (lesser, smaler). Exemple - if it's not allowed to drink alchol at age 20 it's most certanlly not alowed to do it at age 16. Beeing connected tightly with imperative law porovisions it's a trait of the public law and very rarely used in the civil law where dispositive provisions usually apply. At least that is the case under the Roman (Continental) system. If in Islamic law those two techniques are the same, taht, forgive me, but it's the one more proof that the Islamic law system is quite flawed!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In Islamic jurisprudence, a fortiori arguments are usually classified under qiyas, which is usually translated "analogy" or "analogical reasoning". Different thinkers disagree about whether a fortiori arguments are reasoning by analogy, though. A couple sources: A History of Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq; The Search for God's Law: Islamic Jurisprudence in the Writings of Sayf Al-Din Al-Amidi by Bernard Weiss (includes an explanation of why the author translates qiyas as "analogy" and lots more); or just google for qiyas fortiori. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between a fortiori and argumentum analogi 

message: The current version of the article contains a number of translations of a fortiori which I think are mostly wrong. For example, I think "The phrase a fortiori is Latin for 'from [something] stronger]'" is wrong. I think the phrase is short for a fortiori ratione, which is ungrammatical Latin for "with [even] stronger reason". Correct Latin would be a fortiore ratione. I'm guessing that a fortiori started during the Middle Ages, when people often confused the dative with the ablative. But I have not found a source for this. These are only semi-educated guesses, not appropriate on Wikipedia. Can anyone suggest a good source for what a fortiori is actually short for? The only thing that's certain right now is that most of the sources we'd typically use, like ordinary dictionaries, are not reliable here: many that I've looked at contradict each other or appear to have treated the etymology sloppily. Ideally, we'd use a source by a credible historian of law or of Latin, but I haven't found one yet. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for authoritative source on the origin of the phrase 

message: We have our argumentum ad hominem article at the title Ad hominem, and this may be the best solution. There's no particular reason the present article couldn't be at A fortiori, since that phrase is common to all three of the major variants "argumentum a fortiori", "argument a fortiori", and "a fortiori argument". This approach could be applied to the other, similar cases. Ad nauseam, Tu quoque, Ignoratio elenchi, and several others are already at such short names, some have more common English-language names like Argument to authority and Appeal to novelty, but a few others could benefit from a move to the shorter Latin version from the longer one, for both WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY reasons (possibly even WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, since their short forms are probably more familiar to more readers), e.g. Argumentum ad baculum, and Argumentum ad populum. These can be tracked down by doing a search on prefix:Argumentum, which gives us 8 pages to move , and reviewing List of fallacies and related articles, and :Category:Logical fallacies and its subcats, for any that are at long Latin names, but not in "argumentum a[d] ..." form, and which could also be shortened, e.g. Reductio ad absurdum. That last is an especially good candidate for shortening, since it's also known as argumentum ad absurdum, and simply ad absurdum.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Trimming the title down to just A fortiori is an interesting new idea. Here are a few thoughts:1. Ordinarily, Wikipedia article titles are nouns or noun phrases, though of course the specifics of a topic should always trump any supposed "rule". "A fortiori" is a prepositional phrase, and it's normally used that way in English as well as in Latin. Typical usage is "The sign says you can't walk on the grass, so, a fortiori, you can't run on the grass, either." To designate that form of argument, you have to somehow indicate that you are talking about the argument form or an instance of it. That's normally done by juxtaposing the word "argument" or "reasoning" with "afortiori". By contrast, ad hominem is often used as a (phrasal) noun in English even though it's a prepositional phrase in Latin, so there's some basis for eliminating argumentum from the title of that article (though I think Argumentum ad hominem is the more authoritative and appropriate title for that article; tu quoque is a better example). It seems very strange and contrary to the usage I've seen in writings about this topic to reduce the title to Afortiori. So, I don't think that we can be quite so WP:CONCISE here.2. Are you thinking that the present topic (by whatever name) is a logical fallacy? Actually, it's a valid form of reasoning, though some people dispute this; there is a famous controversy about it in the Islamic world. The a fortiori argument is particularly important and frequent in law, regarding applying statutes and precedents to new cases. I'm not sure one way or the other yet how far WP:CONSISTENCY legitimately applies here, but we're in some danger of "hobgoblin consistency" if we force a bunch of article titles to fit a pattern without even understanding what the topics are or what is the common terminology in authoritative writings about those topics.In any event, I'd like to further investigate your suggestion in the collapsed box above, of "argument a fortiori", before making any changes to the current title. That is a reasonable candidate, with established usage in authoritative writings. It'll probably take me a few days to track down what caused the 1992 peak in usage that you found. Hopefully that will shed some helpful new light on what is the most appropriate title. Or, if anyone else already knows what that peak in usage of "argument a fortiori" was about, please post! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, I really don't care much and already wrote more about it that I should have.  The topics do not have to be  alike in order to follow the same naming pattern.  "It's a long-winded Latinism often referred to in short form in English" is sufficient reasoning to use the short form.  Whether it's a noun or not in the original Latin is immaterial; its usage by itself as a label for a type of argument is a noun in English, exactly as with Ad hominem, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow the connection between your reply and what I said above. A fortiori by itself is not normally used as a (phrasal) noun in English to designate the type of argument; please see item #1 above. The usage is not like argumentum ad hominem vs. ad hominem. The only exceptions I've seen are contexts where one of the three longer forms ("a fortiori argument", "argument a fortiori", or "argumentum a fortiori") was used earlier in the same passage to establish the topic. If you don't care, then do you think it would be best if you backed out of participating in forming a consensus? I am grateful to you, though, for finding the 1992 peak in "argument a fortiori", and I'd certainly like the decision to be well-informed, with more pairs of eyes checking it than just my own. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed re-solution 

message: I have removed the unsourced claim that Garner is a usage authority.  There is no similar claim at Bryan A. Garner, either.  If he is an authority at all, he is a self-appointed one; writing a book giving your own opinions on a subject doesn't make you an authority.  --John Cowan (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garner as authority 

message: I have merged two unreferenced stubs, A minore ad maius and A maiore ad minus, onto this page. Please see the history of those pages for the complete edit history of the text that I moved. Thanks to  for the reminder that I should have mentioned this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution of added sections 

message: The lead says that the inferred proposition has to be of equal or weaker degree of certainty than the first one, but in the first example (about being dead and not breathing) the second proposition is said to be deemed "equal or stronger" than the first proposition, so which is it? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Contradiction solved using Merriam-Webster dictionary online. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confuse