# False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use



## blargney the second (May 6, 2010)

This is the internet... fallacies abound!

In the interest of promoting good discussion, I'd like to use this thread to compile a list of common fallacies made by RPGers.  The wikipedia link above has the general categories of fallacy people use to try to win arguments.  What I'm after is a list of specific ways that RPGers adapt those to their own debates.

I'll start with the one I'm seeing most frequently lately:
1) Optimization vs Roleplay.  It's a false dichotomy because one does not preclude the other.  It is possible to be a good roleplayer AND a good optimizer.


----------



## Insight (May 6, 2010)

I'll throw in ad hominem attacks, which have got to be the most prevalent on the Internets.


----------



## Stormonu (May 6, 2010)

1) Appeal to Law:  You must play by RAW or you are having badwrongfun

2) Appeal to Probability: 3.5 is broken because it can produce Pun-Pun.

3) False Dilemma:  You can only play 1E, 2E, 3.5 (or Pathfinder) or 4E, not multiple versions of the game

4) Fallacy of Necessity:  You must own and use every rulebook for a system that exists

5) Nirvana Fallacy: Pathfinder is a horrible system because it is compatible with 3.5

...And, in before lock.


----------



## blargney the second (May 6, 2010)

Those are really good, guys!

There's no inherent reason for this thread to get locked.  If anything, it could serve as a guide for posters to avoid getting hit with the banhammer.


----------



## Crothian (May 6, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> If anything, it could serve as a guide for posters to avoid getting hit with the banhammer.




While using these will not win a formal debate they aren't against the rules of the boards.


----------



## Roger (May 6, 2010)

The fallacy of "It's something RPG players do, so of course it belongs in General RPG Discussion!"



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## blargney the second (May 6, 2010)

I've seen a variation on the Gambler's Fallacy come up at the table quite frequently: "my d20 rolled a 1 right off the bat, now there are no more 1s in there for the rest of the night!"


----------



## NN (May 6, 2010)

The False false dichotomy. This is when someone argues a conflict doesnt exist, because  it isnt a actually a dichotomy, and in certain circumstances the two sides can be reconciled.


----------



## redboxrazor (May 6, 2010)

Is-Ought Problem:
      4E's classes are balanced, and they must remain balanced to be fun.

Bare Assertion:
      Person A: 4E is the most balanced version of D&D.
      Person B: I agree.

Edit: I have no animosity towards 4E. These were simply examples.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Appeal to Authority: Gygax said to do it this way, therefore you should do it this way.


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 7, 2010)

The Edition War Excluded Middle: The assumption that any critic of 4E must be a 3.X/Pathfinder fan, or vice versa. (This one seems to be shifting a bit as the OSR gains prominence, but there's still a number of gamers who don't fall in to any of the three categories.)


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> The Edition War Excluded Middle: The assumption that any critic of 4E must be a 3.X/Pathfinder fan, or vice versa. (This one seems to be shifting a bit as the OSR gains prominence, but there's still a number of gamers who don't fall in to any of the three categories.)



And its alternate form, that any fan of 4E must hate older editions, and vice-versa.


----------



## blargney the second (May 7, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> The Edition War Excluded Middle: The assumption that any critic of 4E must be a 3.X/Pathfinder fan, or vice versa.



In that case, could they be called the Edition XORs?


----------



## The Ghost (May 7, 2010)

The one fallacy I really enjoy seeing is "I have never seen it done before therefor it cannot be done."


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

The Ghost said:


> The one fallacy I really enjoy seeing is "I have never seen it done before therefor it cannot be done."



Or "it's never happened at my table therefore it does not happen."

(And similarly, "That's what happens at my table therefore that's what happens at everyone's".


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Appeal to Authority: Gygax said to do it this way, therefore you should do it this way.



Yes, but more broadly. This could apply to any respected figure, too.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater: Too much of X is bad, so any amount of X is bad. X could be simulation, game balance, fudging, railroading, etc. (EDIT: I guess this is an example of _ignoratio elenchi_, also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis). 

And my #1 pet peeve: Expressing subjective opinion as if it was objective fact. IMO, anyway.


----------



## blargney the second (May 7, 2010)

FireLance said:


> And my #1 pet peeve: Expressing subjective opinion as if it was objective fact. IMO, anyway.



Is that similar to "I like X, therefore X is true" or "I dislike X, therefore X must be false"?


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> Is that similar to "I like X, therefore X is true" or "I dislike X, therefore X must be false"?



Excellent question. I guess it would cover several other fallacies including the one you mentioned, as well as the one raised by Fifth Element, i.e. "It's never happened at my table therefore it does not happen."

It probably occurs in its purest form during alignment arguments, when the line between subjective opinion and objective fact becomes even more blurred.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> I've seen a variation on the Gambler's Fallacy come up at the table quite frequently: "my d20 rolled a 1 right off the bat, now there are no more 1s in there for the rest of the night!"




A lot of gamers I've met and known over the years, are not familiar with the "law of large numbers".

Law of large numbers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Stormonu (May 7, 2010)

FireLance said:


> It probably occurs in its purest form during alignment arguments, when the line between subjective opinion and objective fact becomes even more blurred.




And the use of the polymorph spell.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

The case of particular interest for gamers with respect to the "law of large numbers" is:

Let the random variable _Y_ be equal to the number of successful dice rolls throughout _n_ independent dice rolls with probability _p_ of success.  (ie. This follows a binomial distribution with _n_ trials and probability _p_ of success).  The ratio _Y/n_ is the relative frequency of success.

One can show via the binomial distribution and Tchebyshev's inequality, that for every fixed epsilon > 0,

limit {_n_->_infinity_} Probability( |_Y/n_ -_ p_| < epsilon) = 1

(Note that this is only true in the limit when the number of independent dice rolls approaches infinity.  It says very little about the case where the number of independent dice rolls is finite).


----------



## Mercule (May 7, 2010)

This one isn't on the list, but I remember it from debate class:  Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  (After that, therefore from that.  If A came before B, A caused B.)

4e came after WoW, therefore 4e rules are caused by WoW.


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2010)

My personal favourites:

- I don't like X.  I don't like bad things.  Therefore, because I don't like X, X is bad.

- Any examples which run counter to my point are due to observer error, not any mistakes in whatever my point is.

- Any disagreement with my point is because my point is being misunderstood.  I will further refuse to actually clarify my point because, that will also be misunderstood.

Sorry, don't know the fancy names for any of those.


----------



## steenan (May 7, 2010)

One fallacy I quite commonly see on various RPG boards is
"There is no bad gaming" (as in: every style of play is equally valid)
If what you do ruins fun for any other player at your table, you are playing wrong.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> - Any disagreement with my point is because my point is being misunderstood.  I will further refuse to actually clarify my point because, that will also be misunderstood.



Yep. That's classical behaviour!


steenan said:


> One fallacy I quite commonly see on various RPG boards is
> "There is no bad gaming" (as in: every style of play is equally valid)
> If what you do ruins fun for any other player at your table, you are playing wrong.



Why is that a fallacy?


----------



## Piratecat (May 7, 2010)

Which one is "if I send an insulting and profanity-laden diatribe to the admin, he will suddenly understand my point and allow me back on the site"? 'Cause I want that one on the list!


----------



## Dragonhelm (May 7, 2010)

redboxrazor said:


> Is-Ought Problem:
> 4E's classes are balanced, and they must remain balanced to be fun.
> 
> Bare Assertion:
> ...




Beat me to the punch on this one.  

I felt like this fallacy was way overused in 3e.  From my perspective, it sounded as if the designers had been burned by unbalanced parties enough times that they were determined to put a stop to it through the rules.

I do think that balance can add to fun, making a fair playing ground, but I don't think it should be the primary focus of the game.




Fifth Element said:


> Appeal to Authority: Gygax said to do it this way, therefore you should do it this way.




I'm guilty of using this in Dragonlance circles with Weis and Hickman.  Gygax is probably our prime example as one of the fathers of D&D, but he's not our only one.  

I would look towards Gygax as a good source for original intent, for the evolution of the game, and as someone to look at if your playstyle is similar to his.  Yet the game has evolved beyond Gygax's original intent, so you should not feel beholden to Gygax for your playstyle.

Excellent discussion!


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Which one is "if I send an insulting and profanity-laden diatribe to the admin, he will suddenly understand my point and allow me back on the site"? 'Cause I want that one on the list!



That's not a fallacy, that's being a phal- nevermind.


----------



## FireLance (May 7, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> And the use of the polymorph spell.



Actually, I thought the ultimate spell that blurred the line between subjective opinion and objective fact was _solipisim_ (2e Tome of Magic version*). 

* If I remember correctly.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

Insight said:


> I'll throw in ad hominem attacks, which have got to be the most prevalent on the Internets.



Of course, it'd be nice if more people actually understood what _ad hominem_ means.  (It's not a synonym for saying something mean, folks.)


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Yes, but more broadly. This could apply to any respected figure, too.



Oh, of course. Gygax is just a common example.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Appeal to anecdote:  "I say it happens at my table, therefore you must accept it as true despite your experience to the contrary".  (Relates to appeal to authority, where anyone who is speaking claims said authority.)

Wounded Pride:  "You did not accept my anecdote as trumping your experience, therefore you are insulting me."

Wounding Pride:  "You did not accept my anecdote as trumping your experience, therefore you are unbelievably arrogant."


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Of course, it'd be nice if more people actually understood what _ad hominem_ means.  (It's not a synonym for saying something mean, folks.)



No, but it is saying something mean _in place of presenting an actual argument_. Attacking the speaker rather than the argument.

"_That playstyle is perfectly fine for namby-pamby amateur theatre types_", for example, would be an ad hominem in response to someone arguing that his preferred playstyle is just as valid as another.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Appeal to anecdote:  "I say it happens at my table, therefore you must accept it as true despite your experience to the contrary".



How would this be different from "I say my experience is this, therefore you must accept it as true despite your experience to the contrary?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> How would this be different from "I say my experience is this, therefore you must accept it as true despite your experience to the contrary?"




Sorry, was I beaten to the punch on this particular fallacy?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, was I beaten to the punch on this particular fallacy?



So it's not different then?


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2010)

The Slippery Slope Fallacy Fallacy: Thinking the slippery slope is a fallacy.

Reductio Ad Absurdum Fallacy: Thinking that pointing out extreme examples that produce ridiculous results is a fallacy, rather than a reason for caution concerning the underlying logic... Also known as the Well Of Course You Can Come up With a Ridiculous Example If you Want to, That Doesn't Mean My Logic is Ridiculous Because It Necessarily Generates That Result Fallacy.


----------



## guivre (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> No, but it is saying something mean _in place of presenting an actual argument_. Attacking the speaker rather than the argument.
> 
> .




Not quite correct. Ad hominem arguments can involve insults, but "saying something mean" is not a necessity.

Ad hominem is often incorrectly equated to a personal attack, which is false.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

guivre said:


> Not quite correct. Ad hominem arguments can involve insults, but "saying something mean" is not a necessity.



Sure, I was just using Jeff Wilder's words there. Ad hominem arguments, especially on the internets, generally do involve insults.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> - Any examples which run counter to my point are due to observer error, not any mistakes in whatever my point is.
> 
> - Any disagreement with my point is because my point is being misunderstood.  I will further refuse to actually clarify my point because, that will also be misunderstood.



Both related to the "It's not an insult, it's just the truth" fallacy. You say something insulting, and when someone points out that it's insulting you respond with something like, "I don't mean _namby-pamby amateur theatre type_ as an insult, it's just *the truth*."


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> No, but it is saying something mean _in place of presenting an actual argument_. Attacking the speaker rather than the argument.



No.  (Well, sort of.  You don't state it well, but I think you get it.)  Saying something mean in place of an actual argument isn't a fallacy at all.  It's just being mean.

_Ad hominem_ is saying something about a person _and_ implying or stating a link between what you said and the validity of his or her argument.

"Joe Sixpack is ugly and belongs to the Comnirepublicrat Party. What could he possibly know about tax policy?"


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> _Ad hominem_ is saying something about a person _and_ implying or stating a link between what you said and the validity of his or her argument.



Yes, that's true, didn't state that clearly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> - I don't like X.  I don't like bad things.  Therefore, because I don't like X, X is bad.




That is an example of a faulty syllogism.

However, "bad" is a value judgement.  Apart from some means to objectively make such judgments, what is "bad" is what you don't like.  

(I am not 100% sure that there is no such thing as objective, or semi-objective, valuation, however.  If one assumes commonalities between human beings, at least at some basic level, one can postulate some form of common valuation.)



> - Any examples which run counter to my point are due to observer error, not any mistakes in whatever my point is.




This is only poor logic on the basis of the word "Any".  It is quite frequently true that people will offer anecdotes to counter a point, but that does not mean that the anecdote is a valid counter.  The rational person must consider the possibility that the other speaker is (1) mistaken in his observation, (2) mistaken in his characterization of his observation, and (3) is lying because he wants to firm up his position (to make it ironclad, as it were).

When someone solicits the opinions of others, and then reports on those opinions, you also have to consider how well you believe that person can sift the aforementioned factors.

For example, let us say that I claim to like eating strawberries.  You need to take the context into account, as well as your general estimation of my personality.  If you are offering me strawberries, and you know that I am the kind of person who is likely to avoid giving offense, you are not at all sure that my claim is true.  Indeed, your subsequent observations may lead you to believe that my claim is false (I only eat one or two, and do not seem to enjoy them).  Even if I do seem to enjoy them, you do not know that my claim is true, because you have reasonable grounds to doubt my motives about that claim.

On the InterWeb, where everyone wears a "mask" of sorts, and one cannot directly observe the "speaker", this problem is compounded.

The rational reader has to ask himself at least these questions:

What do I know of the poster?  Has he been generally insightful in the past?  Has he been generally truthful in the past?  Does he admit errors, or does he take offense when error is suspected/pointed out?  IOW, how much of his self-worth, in my estimation, is tied up in his being correct?  The less likely he is to admit error, the less likely his anecdotes are to be trusted.

How rational does the poster appear to be?  Should I assume that he is interpretting data correctly?  Is the data he is relying upon hearsay?  (And hearsay includes "My players say.......")  

Not to put too fine a point on it, do I believe that, confronted with the same direct evidence that the poster is supplying indirect testimony of, that I would draw the same conclusion as the poster?

Does his anecdote make sense, within my experience and to the best of my knowledge?  It would be a poor reader indeed who decided that Gygax was a major fan of 4e in the afterlife simply because I claimed his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years.



> Any disagreement with my point is because my point is being misunderstood.  I will further refuse to actually clarify my point because, that will also be misunderstood.




This is only irrational on the basis of the word "All".

You have claimed being misunderstood many times yourself, and you have misunderstood others many times yourself.  As have I.  As have we (nearly) all.

Intentionally or not, misunderstanding the other poster seems to be a normative for InterWeb conversations.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> So it's not different then?




Not as far as I can see.

Do you believe that Gary Gygax is a major fan of 4e in the afterlife?  Do you believe it if I claim his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years?  Do you believe it if I say it happened at my gaming table, and that all my players also say it happened?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Both related to the "It's not an insult, it's just the truth" fallacy.





Insults are subjective, not rationally objective.  This cannot be a logical fallacy, because insults cannot be defined by logic.

Moreover, in claiming that the poster is in error here, you seem to be claiming that you know his _*intent to insult*_, which is questionable at best, and against The Rules at worst.

Finally, this relates back to the Wounded Pride fallacy, mentioned earlier, in that "Your argument/conclusion is insulting" in no way relates to the logic of that argument or conclusion, but the Wounded Pride is used as a counter to the same.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not as far as I can see.



Then we agree there.



Raven Crowking said:


> Do you believe that Gary Gygax is a major fan of 4e in the afterlife?  Do you believe it if I claim his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years?  Do you believe it if I say it happened at my table?



No, because that's an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence. There's more to a discussion that formal rules of logic.

"Different people like to play games in different ways" is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed its converse "All people like the play games in the same way" would be an extraordinary claim that would require a great deal of evidence.

But I don't want to get into another argument in a thread that's not about that. So that's all I'll say about it here.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 7, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> Which one is "if I send an insulting and profanity-laden diatribe to the admin, he will suddenly understand my point and allow me back on the site"? 'Cause I want that one on the list!



But, isn't that one actually true??? 



Raven Crowking said:


> Do you believe that Gary Gygax is a major fan of 4e in the afterlife?  Do you believe it if I claim his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years?  Do you believe it if I say it happened at my gaming table, and that all my players also say it happened?



Yes. How else could you possibly be inspired to create your own mammoth RPG? 



One common problem I regularly see is the players exhibit is the deductive fallacy. They come to incorrect conclusions by means of faulty reasoning. 
_
Example:_
The Prisoner told us that Malagaunt stole the reliquary;
Most prisoners are liars; 
Therefore, the Prisoner is lying and Malagaunt didn't steal the reliquary.

This is not true; Malagaunt may well have stolen the reliquary even if the Prisoner is a liar.


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Actually, I thought the ultimate spell that blurred the line between subjective opinion and objective fact was _solipisim_ (2e Tome of Magic version*).
> 
> * If I remember correctly.




Ah, man, that spell was SO much fun.  And such a massive PITA for the DM.  I've been on both sides of the screen for that one.  Yikes.  Someone was smoking something when they wrote that one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> There's more to a discussion that formal rules of logic.




Absolutely.  But this thread is about logic, and logic is a useful tool in weighing evidence.  Indeed, traversing the InterWeb without some knowledge of epistemology is like entering the dungeon without weapons, armour, or spells in D&D.  Whatever conclusion you might come to, it probably isn't the best one. 



> "Different people like to play games in different ways" is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed its converse "All people like the play games in the same way" would be an extraordinary claim that would require a great deal of evidence.




Agreed.  I don't think that we need to argue about that.

But, allow me to demonstrate a false syllogism, as this thread is about logical fallacies:

Different people like to play games in different ways.
Playing the game on fire is a different way.
Therefore, some people like to be lit on fire when playing the game.​
You can hopefully see that this is (very probably) untrue, and that the fault lies within the logical construction, and in the way the terms are defined.

Different people like to play games in different ways.
X is a different way.
Therefore, some people like to X when playing the game.​
therefore doesn't actually rationally follow.  The "different ways" is not an infinite set, containing all possible variables.  It is, instead, a set with undefined limits.

Whenever, therefore, I claim that "Some people like to X when playing the game", the agreed upon truth that "Different people like to play games in different ways" should not be taken as evidence that X is one of those ways.



RC


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> This is only irrational on the basis of the word "All".
> 
> You have claimed being misunderstood many times yourself, and you have misunderstood others many times yourself. As have I. As have we (nearly) all.
> 
> Intentionally or not, misunderstanding the other poster seems to be a normative for InterWeb conversations.




But, you ignored the second part of that.  The refusal to clarify your points on the basis that any clarification will also automatically be misunderstood.  I might well have claimed to have been misunderstood.  Sure.  But, I don't think anyone would claim that I'm not stubborn enough to keep trying to make myself understood.

Misunderstanding is fine.  Asking for clarification is fine.  Refusing to clarify once you've been asked to do so on the basis that the asker will misconstrue every point is not fine.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You can hopefully see that this is (very probably) untrue, and that the fault lies within the logical construction, and in the way the terms are defined.



Once again, you're resorting to a ridiculous example. Come away from theoretical extremes and into the realm of productive discussion. To rephrase, "Different people like to play games in _slightly _different ways" should be self-evident.

For instance, I've never played in a game in which the DM rolled his dice openly. But others claim to do that, and since it's a very minor difference from how I play I have no trouble believing it. If I were to try to argue that it does not happen because I've never seen it happen, I would expect to be called on it.



Raven Crowking said:


> therefore doesn't actually rationally follow.  The "different ways" is not an infinite set, containing all possible variables.  It is, instead, a set with undefined limits.



True, but irrelevant when discussing a specific example. When discussing a _minute_ difference in playstyle, refuting that minute differences exist is the extraordinary claim, and produces the onus of evidence.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, you ignored the second part of that.




I did, because deciding to disengage from a fruitless discussion is neither a logical fallacy, nor is it irrational.



RC


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2010)

It's only fruitless if you decide that the other person is being deliberatly obtuse.  Being asked for clarification should NEVER result in an instant shut down of communications.  Nor should every disagreement automatically be decried as a failure of understanding.

However, ((And I'll freely admit, I've never seen you do it)) I've seen both happen more often than is comfortable.  Then again, it's become my main source of Ignore Poster subjects.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Reductio Ad Absurdum Fallacy: Thinking that pointing out extreme examples that produce ridiculous results is a fallacy, rather than a reason for caution concerning the underlying logic... Also known as the Well Of Course You Can Come up With a Ridiculous Example If you Want to, That Doesn't Mean My Logic is Ridiculous Because It Necessarily Generates That Result Fallacy.






Fifth Element said:


> Once again, you're resorting to a ridiculous example.








> When discussing a _minute_ difference in playstyle, refuting that minute differences exist is the extraordinary claim, and produces the onus of evidence.




Sure.  But who defines what is "minute"?  If you ask me to believe a thing, then surely you realize that what I believe is "minute" is more relevant to my belief than what you believe is "minute"?

IOW, do you believe that Gary Gygax is a major fan of 4e in the afterlife? Do you believe it if I claim his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years? Do you believe it if I say it happened at my gaming table, and that all my players also say it happened?

Does it change your mind if I claim believing so is only _minutely_ different from other things you believe?

I should hope it does not.



Hussar said:


> It's only fruitless if you decide that the other person is being deliberatly obtuse.  Being asked for clarification should NEVER result in an instant shut down of communications.




Agreed.

But also, it should be accepted that

(1)  a pattern of (apparently) deliberate (or general) obtuseness in multiple threads can cause a rational poster to assume the same in any given thread -- it need not be proven over and over again.  And,

(2)  at some point in any given exchange, a pattern of (apparently) deliberate (or general) obtuseness can cause a poster to rationally stop expending energy in a given direction.



TarionzCousin said:


> Yes. How else could you possibly be inspired to create your own mammoth RPG?




That is largely the fault of WotC.

Or, WotC should largely get the praise.

You decide.




RC


----------



## Dragonhelm (May 7, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> The Edition War Excluded Middle: The assumption that any critic of 4E must be a 3.X/Pathfinder fan, or vice versa. (This one seems to be shifting a bit as the OSR gains prominence, but there's still a number of gamers who don't fall in to any of the three categories.)




I personally find the idea that you can't be a fan of multiple editions/game systems to be a huge fallacy.  Some of us like D&D of all editions, and realize that each edition has its own unique things to offer.

Problem is, it's hard to debate editions with folks from a logical standpoint.  People are as fervent about that as they are about religion or politics.  Or Mac vs. PC.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure.  But who defines what is "minute"?  If you ask me to believe a thing, then surely you realize that what I believe is "minute" is more relevant to my belief than what you believe is "minute"?



I leave it to using reason to decide. Yes, it's a subjective term. But it is a word and it has meaning. If someone is intentionally obtuse and argues that (for example) the ghost of Gary Gygax DMing his game has the same degree of difference from my play experience as rolling dice in a slightly different location than I do, well, there's not much I can do about that.



Raven Crowking said:


> Does it change your mind if I claim believing so is only _minutely_ different from other things you believe?



No, because _minute_ does have meaning. There is always a degree of subjectivity in words, but if you argue that all words are completely subjective then how will you ever have a conversation with someone?

You can always argue as to where the line should be drawn between, for instance, minute and not-minute. But the examples you're giving in this thread do not fall anywhere near that line.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

The "it means what I say it means" fallacy: using words in ways which depart from the standard meanings of the words, without explanation of this difference.


----------



## MortonStromgal (May 7, 2010)

Fallacy - % dice systems have a bell curve because you roll 2 dice.

And for my second one - Gamers are smarter than other people (if this were true the previous fallacy wouldn't come up soo often)


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Sorry everyone, for letting him drag me into this again. I'm out.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It's only fruitless if you decide that the other person is being deliberatly obtuse.



"Deliberately" need not be an element.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

MortonStromgal said:


> And for my second one - Gamers are smarter than other people (if this were true the previous fallacy wouldn't come up soo often)



RPGers are, IME, more intelligent on the average than the general population.  (In fact, I'd say "significantly" more intelligent.  Consider that the average American doesn't read for pleasure, before disputing the lesser statement.)

Regarding your parenthetical, the ability to recognize and avoid fallacy overlaps intelligence -- primarily via education in logic, but also via untaught reasoning ability -- but is not congruent to it.  Your parenthetical is, interestingly, itself a fallacy.

RPGers have faults not so predominant in the general population, too, so don't think I'm mounting a rose-colored defense.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

MortonStromgal said:


> And for my second one - Gamers are smarter than other people (if this were true the previous fallacy wouldn't come up soo often)




When one meets enough gamers over the years (or for that matter almost any other niche or fandom), one will probably be dispelled of the notion that gamers are smarter than other people.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> RPGers are, IME, more intelligent on the average than the general population.  (In fact, I'd say "significantly" more intelligent.  Consider that the average American doesn't read for pleasure, before disputing the lesser statement.)




Does reading for pleasure have a significant correlation with intelligence?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I leave it to using reason to decide. Yes, it's a subjective term. But it is a word and it has meaning. If someone is intentionally obtuse and argues that (for example) the ghost of Gary Gygax DMing his game has the same degree of difference from my play experience as rolling dice in a slightly different location than I do, well, there's not much I can do about that.




Well, "the ghost of Gary Gygax DMing" and "rolling dice in a slightly different location" are similar in that they are both extreme examples.  Usually, the question as to whether or not something is "minute" is far more subjective than either.



> There is always a degree of subjectivity in words, but if you argue that all words are completely subjective then how will you ever have a conversation with someone?




I don't argue that all words are completely subjective.  I argue that valuation is subjective.  Earlier in this thread, I even posited that valuation may not be completely subjective.



Fifth Element said:


> The "it means what I say it means" fallacy: using words in ways which depart from the standard meanings of the words, without explanation of this difference.




I call this "Humpty-Dumpty Logic" after the bit in _Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There_.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' 

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.' 

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!' 

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?' 

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'​


Fifth Element said:


> Sorry everyone, for letting him drag me into this again. I'm out.




Impenetrability! That's what I say!

Ah.  Obviously the first post in this was mine, while posting under your user name.  _Mea culpa_.  



Jeff Wilder said:


> "Deliberately" need not be an element.




All too true.


RC


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Does reading for pleasure have a significant correlation with intelligence?



Yes.  (That's an excellent and intelligent question.  Tell me, do you play RPGs?)


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Yes.  (That's an excellent and intelligent question.  Tell me, do you play RPGs?)




Yes to the latter.  Though presently I'm not in any regular game.  (My 4E campaign ended awhile ago).

For the original question, is there a published study which has examined this question?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> For the original question, is there a published study which has examined this question?



There have been several.  Have you tried Google?


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Does reading for pleasure have a significant correlation with intelligence?




Some people are not intelligent enough to read well. Compared with "people in general," which includes people who do not read, people who read for pleasure are significantly more intelligent. Intelligence is also associated with interest in things in general, so simply having an interest which requires thought, however minimal in intensity, tends to mean people who do that thing are more intelligent than average. 

It's like asking if people who play tennis are more physically fit than usual. Of course they are. Even though some people who play tennis are in rather poor shape, they are at least in shape enough to play tennis. 

People who think gamers are dumb do not spend enough time in on-level high school classes, eavesdropping on conversations at the DMV, or listening to "man on the street" interviews about major political issues. The vast majority of gamers know the difference between Austria and Australia; there is a significant slice of the US population that doesn't.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> There have been several.




Do you have a reference in mind?  (ie. journal citation, web links, etc ...).



Jeff Wilder said:


> Have you tried Google?




I'm interested in which particular references you had in mind.


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 7, 2010)

The attitude of "I know more rules and/or fluff about the game so I am more correct than you and I care more about the game that you" and "once something's been established it should never be changed under any circumstances and any change thereafter is invalid".


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Do you have a reference in mind?  (ie. journal citation, web links, etc ...).



No.  I'm very bright, but I don't go around memorizing sources.  (At least not since law school.)  My most recent ex-girlfriend is a school psychologist, and I used to read her trade publications all the time (for pleasure!), so I'm aware of the strong correlation.



> I'm interested in which particular references you had in mind.



Then why didn't you ask that and save some time?  You need to get back to RPGing!


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Some people are not intelligent enough to read well. Compared with "people in general," which includes people who do not read, people who read for pleasure are significantly more intelligent.




I use to believe something along these lines, until I've met enough people over the years to convince me otherwise.  In other words, I've met enough intelligent people who are incredibly unintelligent in many things, and I've met enough "non-intelligent" people who are actually quite "intelligent" in some things.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> *No.*
> 
> ...
> 
> Then why didn't you ask that and save some time?




You answered the question already.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> The attitude of "I know more rules and/or fluff about the game so I am more correct than you and I care more about the game that you" and "once something's been established it should never be changed under any circumstances and any change thereafter is invalid".




Those are positions or attitudes rather than logical fallacies; the second moreso than the first.

I would have to argue that knowing "more rules and/or fluff about the game" implies more effort being applied, and thus caring more about the game.  If I was to take the opinion of someone who knew more about X or who knew less, I would also be inclined to think that the person who knew more was likely to have a better grounded opinion.

But neither are absolute.

Whether or not "once something's been established it should never be changed under any circumstances and any change thereafter is invalid" begs quite a few more questions.  For example, change is part of the game, just as it is part of the real world.  I would argue that change should flow from the "reality" of the established milieu rather than contradict it, but YMMV.  

That nothing should change would make for a dull game indeed!



ggroy said:


> I use to believe something along these lines, until I've met enough people over the years to convince me otherwise.  In other words, I've met enough intelligent people who are incredibly unintelligent in many things, and I've met enough "non-intelligent" people who are actually quite "intelligent" in some things.




I'm honestly not sure where I stand on this issue.  I go back and forth about how I estimate both average human, and average gamer, intelligence.  Sometimes I am very optimistic.  Sometimes I am not.


RC


----------



## Umbran (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> There have been several.  Have you tried Google?




Appeal to Google as an authority?

In general, assertion that supportive evidence exists is not itself support.  "Go look it up yourself" is not exactly a logical fallacy, but it doesn't make for a well-supported position.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I'm very bright




I don't consider myself bright.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> I use to believe something along these lines, until I've met enough people over the years to convince me otherwise.  In other words, I've met enough intelligent people who are incredibly unintelligent in many things, and I've met enough "non-intelligent" people who are actually quite "intelligent" in some things.



Well, that's getting into an almost-always fruitless discussion of the "meaning" of intelligence.  That's somewhat fair, I suppose, so my working definition of intelligence -- and that which is used by the psych periodicals I mentioned above -- is "that which is measure by the various IQ tests."

E.g., while being able to flawlessly play Mozart on a piano is impressive (and often correlated with intelligence), musical ability is not itself intelligence.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Well, that's getting into an almost-always fruitless discussion of the "meaning" of intelligence.  That's somewhat fair, I suppose, so my working definition of intelligence -- and that which is used by the psych periodicals I mentioned above -- is "that which is measure by the various IQ tests."
> 
> E.g., while being able to flawlessly play Mozart on a piano is impressive (and often correlated with intelligence), musical ability is not itself intelligence.




One person I had in mind was somebody who scored relatively low on various IQ tests when they were a kid.  (This person's parents had various IQ tests done).  During school, this person ended up in special ed.

Many years later, this person did a PhD in pure mathematics.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> In general, assertion that supportive evidence exists is not itself support.  "Go look it up yourself" is not exactly a logical fallacy, but it doesn't make for a well-supported position.



No, but it's not my job -- in real-life or on the Internet -- to provide citations for people who are too lazy to look them up themselves.  (In legal terms, I'm asking for "judicial notice" to be taken.  Of course, occasionally you get a douchebag lawyer who objects to even the most basic judicial notice, on the basis that asking for it "doesn't make for a well-supported position."  Usually they get laughed at, unless they, themselves, are in some position of authority.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Amusingly enough (or not so), I was at the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto last weekend.  A gentleman delivering a talk there said that Encyclopedias were no longer useful, as Google filled the same function.

I was, honestly, floored.

A good set of Encyclopedias (I own Britannicas, for instance) are well edited, and are written by people who are acknowledged in the field they are writing about.  Google points to, among others, me.

They are clearly not the same thing at all.


RC


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> One person I had in mind was somebody who scored relatively low on various IQ tests when they were a kid.  (This person's parents had various IQ tests done).  During school, this person ended up in special ed.
> 
> Many years later, this person did a PhD in pure mathematics.



And Einstein supposedly failed elementary mathematics.  Exceptions occur.

(BTW, did you know that reasoning from specific to general is _also_ a fallacy?)


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> And Einstein supposedly failed elementary mathematics.  Exceptions occur.




Is this via judging Einstein's GPA in the German system, where a lower GPA number is better?



Jeff Wilder said:


> (BTW, did you know that reasoning from specific to general is _also_ a fallacy?)




Of course.


----------



## Stormonu (May 7, 2010)

Another one I thought of, though I have no idea what the technical term might be.

That you can theoretically build a character/monster/scenario that is broken means that it is an actual problem that occurs within the game. (again, pointing towards Pun-pun; theoretically, it is possible to build him, but how many like him _actually_ exist in people's games?).


----------



## MortonStromgal (May 7, 2010)

See I used to think gamers were more intelligent, then I met enough of them (going to cons) to realize no they aren't. Many don't read for pleasure, heck some of them have not even read the rule book they own for the game they play every week. You could argue that GMs maybe are more intelligent (because most have at leased read the rules and enjoy reading) but if you look at everyone who plays as a whole I don't feel there is a significant improvement over non-gamers. 

[Edit] I have also met a handful of GMs who will admit that they have not read a book since college and get there ideas from TV or movies. They dont read the rules either thats what rules lawyer player is for.



ggroy said:


> Is this via judging Einstein's GPA in the German  system, where a lower GPA number is better?




No, people who are good at higher level math often have problems crunching basic arithmetic. I'm one of those people, for my college entrance exam I got a perfect score on the calcus and higher math but flunked the arithmetic section.  The placement office had no idea what to do with me because I couldn't add or subtract but put me in a number theory class and I'm golden.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> And Einstein supposedly failed elementary mathematics.




This may not be the case.  From "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.  Volume 1. (English Translation)" on page xx, Maja Winteler-Einstein (Albert's sister) writes (translated from the original German):

"_In Gymnasium, the boy was suppose to begin the study of algebra and geometry at the age of 13.  Before that, he already had a predilection for solving complicated problems in applied arithmetic, although the computational errors he made kept him from appearing particularly talented in the eyes of his teachers.  Now he wanted see what he can understand about these subjects in advance, during his vacation, and asked his parents to obtain the textbooks for him.    Play and playmates were forgotten.  He set to work on the theorems, not by taking their proofs from books, but rather by attempting to prove them for himself.  For days on end he sat alone, immersed in the search for solution, not giving up before he found it.  He often found proofs by ways which were different from those given in the books.  Thus, during this one vacation of a few months, he independently worked his way though the entire prospective Gymnasium syllabus.  Uncle Jakob, who as an engineer had a comprehensive mathematical education, reinforced Albert's zeal by posing difficult problems, not without good-natured expressions of doubt about his ability to solve them.  Albert invariably found a correct proof, and even found an entirely original one for the Pythagorean theorem.  When he got such results, the boy was overcome by great happiness, and was already then aware of the direction in which his talents were leading him._"

This passage appears to be referenced in Walter Isaacson's Einstein biography "Einstein:  His life and Universe" on pages 16-17.  Pages 16-17 attempt to refute that Einstein failed mathematics when he was a kid in school.


----------



## blargney the second (May 7, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> IOW, do you believe that Gary Gygax is a major fan of 4e in the afterlife?



No, I don't believe that.  I can't explain why because it's against the site rules.  Suffice to say, I have no problem with the nouns "Gary Gygax", "major fan", or "4e" in that sentence.



Dragonhelm said:


> Problem is, it's hard to debate editions with folks from a logical standpoint.  People are as fervent about that as they are about religion or politics.  Or Mac vs. PC.



This thread has clarified something for me: some people seem to treat RPGs as a belief system.  It makes a certain amount of sense, given that it takes place largely in your head.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> No, I don't believe that.





*Good!*

(You should not really have to explain why.)





EDIT:  Really, it was just supposed to be an extreme example to demonstrate the problems with the "you must accept what I say my experience is without subjecting it to critical thinking" meme.  

Also, I have (sadly, I know) wanted to find an excuse to say Gygax's ghost aged me 10 years for a pathetically long time now.


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 7, 2010)

> "you must accept what I say my experience is without subjecting it to critical thinking"




Well, critical thinking and logic does ignore people's personal experiences and it's all about the argument, and nothing else. There are people who do place an enormous amount of value on logic and critical thinking and end up using it to justify the same thing. So, at least for me, there is no real difference. Logic is simply the beginning of wisdom. And using logic and critical thinking does not automatically make a person more intelligent either.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 7, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well, critical thinking and logic does ignore people's personal experiences and it's all about the argument, and nothing else.



This could literally not be less true.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well, critical thinking and logic does ignore people's personal experiences and it's all about the argument, and nothing else.




Not everything can be deduced by pure logic and critical thinking.

This is the main reason scientific experiments are done extensively in many of the hard sciences and engineering.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> EDIT:  Really, it was just supposed to be an extreme example to demonstrate the problems with the "you must accept what I say my experience is without subjecting it to critical thinking" meme.



One more time for old time's sake (before I finally put you on ignore, for everyone's sake): I guess the problem here is that you consider "critical thinking" to include "if it's not in my experience, it can't happen." That, I'm afraid, is not critical thinking, because it includes the rather uncritical idea that your experience is universal.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> This could literally not be less true.




Agreed.  The few areas where "logic does ignore people's personal experiences" which I can think of offhand, would be in some areas of pure mathematics.

Otherwise, personal experiences does come into play in many decisions made in practice.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well, critical thinking and logic does ignore people's personal experiences and it's all about the argument, and nothing else. There are people who do place an enormous amount of value on logic and critical thinking and end up using it to justify the same thing. So, at least for me, there is no real difference. Logic is simply the beginning of wisdom. And using logic and critical thinking does not automatically make a person more intelligent either.




Well, if adding logic and critical thinking does increase intelligence, then presumably substracting them will not decrease it. So you are saying a person can be intelligent without logic and critical thinking. I think I am going to disagree with that.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> I use to believe something along these lines, until I've met enough people over the years to convince me otherwise.  In other words, I've met enough intelligent people who are incredibly unintelligent in many things, and I've met enough "non-intelligent" people who are actually quite "intelligent" in some things.




While I am very comfortable with multiple ways of measuring intelligence, there is basically no way I can agree with the idea that people who read are not more intelligent. I am completely okay with agreeing that people who are unintelligent by some measures have useful abilities. 

But reading for pleasure correlates with intelligence. Gaming correlates with intelligence. Gamers regularly use rules-sets bigger than entire high school curricula. Gamers routinely engage in fractions, critical reading, imaginative play.

If you have a good, solid job surrounded by people that don't frustrate you every day with their lack of functionality, you are already substantially sheltered from what "normal" intelligence is. That guy on the busstop who tries to ask you for change but doesn't quite make sense? Average them in. All those kids in special ed you didn't see a lot of in high school? Average them in. The cashier who can't make change by hand? Average them in.  People who think New Mexico is a country? Average them in. The people for whom "This is not a safety device" is written on Funnoodle? Average them in. 

Have you ever talked with someone with a verified IQ of 85 or lower?


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 7, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> This could literally not be less true.




It's been my experience for many years.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Agreed.  The few areas where "logic does ignore people's personal experiences" which I can think of offhand, would be in some areas of pure mathematics.
> 
> Otherwise, personal experiences does come into play in many decisions made in practice.




Even then, I'm sure it seems like common sense stuff, if you happen to be a mathematician. "Oh, that old theorem? I think I know what you're talking about, my old professor used to play with that one..."


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> It's been my experience for many years.




Evaluating the experience of several years is, itself, a practice that suggests critical thinking.


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 7, 2010)

> there is basically no way I can agree with the idea that people who read are not more intelligent.




Except that there are people who do read and don't think forthemselves, they just pass on what they read.

Example, conspiracy theorists reading any books on any form of conspiracy theory, such as "the moon landing was a hoax".

Or partisan politics. These people just repeat what they've read without thinking about it.

But I think I'm going to stop here because this is bordering on the political.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

Has anyone mentioned yet what could be called the "Better Way" fallacy? That is, there are better and poorer ways of pretending to be an elf, on anything approaching an objective basis?


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Gaming correlates with intelligence. Gamers regularly use rules-sets bigger than entire high school curricula. Gamers routinely engage in fractions, critical reading, imaginative play.




Can the same be said, if the word "gamers"/"gaming" is replaced with something like "Mafia wiseguys", "investment banker", etc ...?  



pawsplay said:


> Have you ever talked with someone with a verified IQ of 85 or lower?




I have actually met a few individuals with verified low IQ's.

One such person spent all their time talking about the heavy metal band Metallica, and nothing else.

Another such person, spent all his time drinking and snorting cocaine.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Except that there are people who do read and don't think forthemselves, they just pass on what they read.




Yes, but some people _can't read_, or read with such effort that they would never purposefully read anything more complicated than the wrapper of a microwave burrito. Once you exclude people who are simply suffering from a severe reading disorder, you are talking about people who are not smart enough to read and mindlessly parrot anything. They couldn't even pretend to be mindlessly parroting it, they couldn't even explain what it literally means. 

I once gave an IQ test to someone who, when asked whose name was most generally associated with the theory of relativityy, replied, "Your parents." Apart from obviously not knowing a single useful idea of what the theory of relativity might be... "parents" is not a name!


----------



## blargney the second (May 7, 2010)

Intelligence != education.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Can the same be said, if the word "gamers"/"gaming" is replaced with something like "Mafia wiseguys", "investment banker", etc ...?




Yes about the bankers. Mafia wiseguys typically have average or lower intelligence, and have a shockingly high rate of personality disorders and depression.  Most criminals have already failed at trying to be something else.



> I have actually met a few individuals with verified low IQ's.
> 
> One such person spent all their time talking about the heavy metal band Metallica, and nothing else.
> 
> Another such person, spend all his time drinking and snorting cocaine.




So... not really into the whole critical thinking thing, then?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Once you exclude people who are simply suffering from a severe reading disorder, you are talking about people who are not smart enough to read and mindlessly parrot anything. They couldn't even pretend to be mindlessly parroting it, they couldn't even explain what it literally means.



Reading is a learned skill. Those with learning disabilities are not the only ones who can't read.

This is quite a tangent we're off on here.


----------



## pawsplay (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Reading is a learned skill. Those with learning disabilities are not the only ones who can't read.
> 
> This is quite a tangent we're off on here.




Yes. So to bring it back on topic... 

You made a strawman argument. I was not claiming that people with learning disabilities are the only ones who can't read.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> So... not really into the whole critical thinking thing, then?




On the surface that appeared to be the case.

The few things I saw these individuals do which may have required some thinking, is stuff like reading comic books or heavy metal magazines.

The low IQ cokehead guy, could play guitar half decently.  He could listen to something, and figure out within a few minutes how to play it on a guitar or piano.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 7, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> You made a strawman argument. I was not claiming that people with learning disabilities are the only ones who can't read.



Sorry - I read your post to mean that if you take all people who can't read and take out those with learning disabilities, you are left with "people who are not smart enough to read and  mindlessly parrot anything".

*Piratecat here. I've privately addressed this post and the one after it. Other than using them as an example of "don't take the internet too seriously and don't take personal disagreements from thread to thread," please ignore them and carry on with the conversation.*


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I guess the problem here is that you consider "critical thinking" to include "if it's not in my experience, it can't happen."





No; the problem is that you don't listen.

I have answered this sour old chestnut so many times that I have lost count of how many times I have done so.  

When you PMed me, I went through a chain of reasoning for you that you agreed with until it became obvious that the previous things you agreed with caused a necessary inference that you disagreed with.

In one thread, you argued that I was making an inference based on personal preference.  I went through the reasoning item by item, so that you could see exactly how the inference was gained, and you were forced to admit that the inference was correct (even though you again ascribed inferences to the chain of reasoning which had nothing to do with it; you had, apparently, hoped your evidence demonstrated something else).

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164564-post663.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164602-post665.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164702-post670.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164730-post673.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164730-post673.html

So, once more:

1.  Each person has direct experience, which they use to build up a worldview.  For this example, I will deal with a given person, X, whose experience is Y.

2.  People make claims which are contrary (Person Z claims not-Y).

3.  Depending upon the strength of Y, person X will either accept not-Y outright, provisionally accept not-Y, or require additional proof.

A.  If Y is weakly experienced, and Z claims not-Y is strongly experienced, and X knows Z to be rational, X may simply accept not-Y and modify his worldview.

B.  If Y is moderately experienced, and Z claims not-Y, and X knows Z to be rational, X will accept Z's claim provisionally, ascribing it no relative truth-value, and likewise consider alterations to his worldview to take into account Z's testimony of not-Y.  That provisional acceptance is all that Z can or should expect, however, under any circumstances.....he is not "owed" anything more.

C.  If Y is strongly experienced, or experienced in every instance, and Z claims not-Y, X may provisionally accept Z's claim, as described under B, if he knows Z to be rational.  If, OTOH, he suspects that Z is not rational, has a strong observer bias, or is willing to manipulate data to make it meet his ends, X is justified in dismissing the claim of not-Y.​
It should be noted that what consitutes an "extraordinary claim" is not based on the position of the claimant, but upon the position of whoever the claimant wishes to persuade.  If all of my experience is Y, then not-Y is an extraordinary claim.

Or, as I put it upthread:

It is quite frequently true that people will offer anecdotes to counter a point, but that does not mean that the anecdote is a valid counter. The rational person must consider the possibility that the other speaker is (1) mistaken in his observation, (2) mistaken in his characterization of his observation, and (3) is lying because he wants to firm up his position (to make it ironclad, as it were).

When someone solicits the opinions of others, and then reports on those opinions, you also have to consider how well you believe that person can sift the aforementioned factors.

For example, let us say that I claim to like eating strawberries. You need to take the context into account, as well as your general estimation of my personality. If you are offering me strawberries, and you know that I am the kind of person who is likely to avoid giving offense, you are not at all sure that my claim is true. Indeed, your subsequent observations may lead you to believe that my claim is false (I only eat one or two, and do not seem to enjoy them). Even if I do seem to enjoy them, you do not know that my claim is true, because you have reasonable grounds to doubt my motives about that claim.

On the InterWeb, where everyone wears a "mask" of sorts, and one cannot directly observe the "speaker", this problem is compounded.

The rational reader has to ask himself at least these questions:

What do I know of the poster? Has he been generally insightful in the past? Has he been generally truthful in the past? Does he admit errors, or does he take offense when error is suspected/pointed out? IOW, how much of his self-worth, in my estimation, is tied up in his being correct? The less likely he is to admit error, the less likely his anecdotes are to be trusted.

How rational does the poster appear to be? Should I assume that he is interpretting data correctly? Is the data he is relying upon hearsay? (And hearsay includes "My players say.......") 

Not to put too fine a point on it, do I believe that, confronted with the same direct evidence that the poster is supplying indirect testimony of, that I would draw the same conclusion as the poster?

Does his anecdote make sense, within my experience and to the best of my knowledge? It would be a poor reader indeed who decided that Gygax was a major fan of 4e in the afterlife simply because I claimed his ghost appeared to me, told me so, and aged me 10 years.​
Or, as Jeff Wilder put it:



			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Look, if every single one of my experiences with anything goes one way, and I have a lot of those experiences, I'm going to believe my experiences over what you tell me the experiences of someone else have been.
> 
> If you tell me what your experiences have been, I'll need to make a judgment as to whether or not I believe you that your experience contradicts mine.
> 
> ...




(http://www.enworld.org/forum/5164748-post677.html)

So, please don't continue to PM me, dredge this up in various threads, and then pretend to be wounded about how I "pulled you into this".  And, if you are going to characterize my position, please do so correctly.

Thank you, and enjoy having me on your Ignore list.


RC


----------



## coyote6 (May 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> This may not be the case.  From "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.  Volume 1. (English Translation)" on *page xx*, Maja Winteler-Einstein (Albert's sister) writes (translated from the original German):




I'm not sure I've ever seen a page xx in a messageboard post. Should this spawn a thread deploring the sad decline of post editing? 

That would be fallacious, though.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> I'm not sure I've ever seen a page xx in a messageboard post. Should this spawn a thread deploring the sad decline of post editing?




In the first section of that book, the pages were numbered with roman numerals from v to xxii.  (Pages i to iv were not numbered).  So xx would correspond to the 20th page in that first section.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Has anyone mentioned yet what could be called the "Better Way" fallacy? That is, there are better and poorer ways of pretending to be an elf, on anything approaching an objective basis?




That's not a fallacy; there is nothing inherently irrational in the belief that valuation is completely subjective.  In fact, upthread you chided me for your (mistaken) belief that I believed valuation to be completely subjective.

Ironic, really.


RC


----------



## Dire Bare (May 7, 2010)

How about this fallacy:

Message board threads need to follow the rules of debate and logic, rather than the "rules" of casual conversations.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> need to follow the rules of debate and logic, rather than the "rules" of casual conversations.




The only places I've seen where this is done in practice, is academic seminars in some university departments such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc ...


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Yes about the bankers. Mafia wiseguys typically have average or lower intelligence, and have a shockingly high rate of personality disorders and depression.  Most criminals have already failed at trying to be something else.




No idea what wiseguys are like.  (Don't know anyone personally who is in organized crime).

With that being said, which particular wiseguys or generic criminal types actually have high intelligence?  (ie.  Excluding guys like convicted Enron executives).


----------



## blargney the second (May 7, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> How about this fallacy:
> 
> Message board threads need to follow the rules of debate and logic, rather than the "rules" of casual conversations.



I agree, that would certainly be an extreme idea.

However, you can still call people on crappy arguments even in casual conversations.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> However, you can still call people on crappy arguments even in casual conversations.




In casual conversations face-to-face in person, people can hang themselves more easily with their own rope, for everybody to see.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> there is basically no way I can agree with the idea that people who read are not more intelligent.




(This is strictly personal anecdotal experience).

The "smartest" persons I've known over the years, don't watch any television at all and don't even own a TV.  Whether this is a significant variable which correlates in general to intelligence, I don't know.

A few oddball exceptions I knew of, were persons who didn't watch tv, didn't listen to the radio, didn't read the newspaper, didn't use any computers, didn't read any books, etc ...  One person I knew who was like this, spent most of his free off-work waking hours playing jazz guitar at home or at a nightclub.


----------



## ggroy (May 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Appeal to Google as an authority?
> 
> In general, assertion that supportive evidence exists is not itself support.  "Go look it up yourself" is not exactly a logical fallacy, but it doesn't make for a well-supported position.




In the academic ivory tower, it is common to ask somebody for particular references such as a particular author and/or journal citation.  Most of the time, such inquiries are answered readily.

Outside of the ivory tower, this is not necessarily the case.

Usually one can tell if somebody is an academic professor type or not, judging by how they deal with inquiries and questions, and how patient they are in explaining things.  It takes a lot for such professor types to lose their cool, even under intense questioning.  Non-professor types tend to lose their cool a lot sooner.  (This may vary significantly between different faculties, and even campuses).

(This was my experiences over the years, in and out of the ivory tower in the hard sciences).


----------



## Cadfan (May 7, 2010)

Confusing your house rules with the actual rules and then getting belligerent, particularly when discussing problems with a game.

Joe "Game X has Rule Y, which isn't very good."
Bob "No it doesn't.  It has Rule Z."
Joe "I'm looking at the rules right now, and you totally made that up."
Bob "Well, technically, yes, I did.  But I think its a good rule, and I'm going to abuse you for not knowing about it."

Sheer bloody minded provincialism.

Joe "Game X has (or lacks) Y.  Any game that has (or lacks) Y will have Flaw Z, or will appeal only to players with horribly negative traits."
Bob "Dozens of games have (or lack) Y, and don't have those problems.  Here is a list."
Joe "Given the choice between believing you, looking up those games, or blindly slandering tens or even hundreds of thousands of people I don't know, I choose slander."

When editions change, or when people consider new games, they pay a lot of attention.  This means that things that often happen behind the scenes become more pronounced.  Sometimes people react to this by becoming very, very upset about something that already existed in their original game, but which they previously overlooked.

Joe "It is hideously unrealistic that you can heal a broken pelvis overnight in Game X.  That's why I prefer Game Y."
Bob "In Game Y you can heal a broken pelvis in three nights."
Joe "So?  You never think about it in game Y."

There are also some really strange, fundamentally weird issues people have with concepts like verisimilitude, the relationship between DMs and their own game, etc.  But those take longer to discuss.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Message board threads need to follow the rules of debate and logic, rather than the "rules" of casual conversations.




Board threads that are actually casual conversation don't need to follow such rules.  But many of the threads here aren't just casual conversation.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 8, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> I agree, that would certainly be an extreme idea.
> 
> However, you can still call people on crappy arguments even in casual conversations.




Oh, I agree.  A lot of what folks in this thread have called out certainly represent some recurring problems in discussion, formal or otherwise.  But I'm also seeing a few folks taking things too far (not many, but some).


----------



## Chrono22 (May 8, 2010)

The fallacy fallacy - identifying a fallacy in another post is a substitute for having a position or making propositions of your own.
The nonsense fallacy fallacy - another poster's points are invalid because of a fallacy you just made up on the spot.


----------



## Wayside (May 8, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> The fallacy fallacy - identifying a fallacy in another post is a substitute for having a position or making propositions of your own.



The "that's a fallacy" fallacy, i.e. calling something a fallacy when it isn't. Example: see above.


----------



## pawsplay (May 8, 2010)

Chrono22 said:


> The fallacy fallacy - identifying a fallacy in another post is a substitute for having a position or making propositions of your own.
> The nonsense fallacy fallacy - another poster's points are invalid because of a fallacy you just made up on the spot.




Strangely, not only is this allowed on theRPGsite, it's almost required, like how jocks are required to punch each other and pat each other on the butt and so forth.


----------



## Jack7 (May 8, 2010)

I'm not sure if these have been stated before, as these are a lot of pages to wade through at 2 in the morning. But I've enjoyed what I have read, and laughed at some of them. I'm also not sure my entries are all fallacies, per se, (exactly what you're looking for in this thread). But they can certainly be false assumptions of a kind.


*Ad Infinitum, or No Mas/No Mas*: If I argue until the other guy gives up or has no more time to continue then I win by virtue of the fact that he ran out of time or interest. With practice and nothing better to do I can eventually win all of my arguments in this way. 

*Non, et Non*: No reasoning on your part will force me to reconsider the validity of my argument (or yours), and conceding any part of your argument in some way endangers all of my argument. Therefore nothing you say will endanger my line of non-reasoning. There's just no reason for it.

*Argumentum Bonum*: I like a good argument, therefore I will find something to argue about your point, even if it is tangential, or if I am the only one reading it this way. If I can't find something to disagree with, then I'll invent something.

*Expertus Maximus*: I've won other similar arguments, therefore I've won this one... when will you learn?

*Squirtus Maximus*: Watch my emotions torrent in a squirty stream of illogic which is nonetheless devastatingly passionate. Therefore, I win. I just feel more deeply about it than you do.

*Ass-umptus Maximus*: You didn't really say this (or that), but I'm assuming it's obviously what you meant, and even if I could easily verify your real point by asking you a few simple questions, it's just more fun to argue my assumption than the exactness of your point. Assumptions are fun after all!

*When you Win/Wins*: I won this argument on the basis of the fact that I decided I won, therefore, you win by virtue of the fact that you were able to bask in the glory of my winitude. It's a win/win for everyone, you pathetic Loser!

*Misunderstandus Inexplicipus*: For some inexplicable reason I cannot yet fathom your point, and so therefore, since you didn't make it plain enough, your reasoning is naturally faulty. (You failed to communicate in such a way that I could easily understand you, therefore, you must be an idiot!)

*Tourette's Argument* (_from design_): What a $*!+-faced @$$ u must be in real life. You must be some kinda moron who is hated by everyone you know, so, you lose! (This is a big problem on the internet since it has been statistically proven that users of the internet suffer from Tourette's Argument Fallacy at a rate of 1000 times that of the general population. Reason's unknown, but probably deducible.) 

*Familiaris Internetus* (or, _I Know You Through the Aether_): I know all about you and your kind that I need to know through the internet. Therefore I know you and what you really meant, and who and what you really are. See, I'm brilliant like that.

*Meekus Squeakus*: I think this way, therefore everyone thinks this way, and if they don't then they obviously haven't had the advantage of thinking like me.

*Politicus Correctimu*s: Every argument in the end is surely a political one, and trust me, my politics are far more evolved and sophisticated than yours. Therefore, I win!

*Wishful Blissful*: My one wish is that you realize how stupid you are, cause if you realized how stupid you are then you'd realize how stupid I think you are. And then we could share that in common. (Translation: you're not nearly as smart as I obviously think I am, so when are you gonna figure that out already? What, do I just have to keep telling ya over and over again.)

*Invisiblus Ironicus*: You and I both understand the irony of what I am saying, but if I close my eyes hard enough, it never happened, and so you won't notice either.

*Singularis Unum* (aka, _My Psychic Crush on Myself_): I'm the only one who really understands the brilliance of what I am saying. So no matter how fragile my position may be, secretly, and deep inside, I've already won in my own mind. If only more people could understand this instinctively, it would be a far better world.

*Invictus Indubilus*: The point of every argument is to vanquish the enemy, to hear the lamentations of the women, to curse the dark ignorance of the foe, to conquer all opposition and doubt, to lay low the adversary. We do not debate to discover truth, we argue to crush the fool who dares to question me! (The internet is not for fun, or a place to pursue your interests, or to have stimulating, fruitful debates, it is a place to prove what a fool the other guy must be for messin with me.)

*The Masterbaiter*: Yes, deep down I understand exactly what you mean and probably agree, but let me rebait your argument in a totally different way so as to draw in someone else who I know will open this thing up like unholy hell on a hotplate.

*Terminus Idioticus*: Look there you idiot, you misused or misspelled a term in some way. Therefore everything else you say is stupid! Therefore I win, you maroon!

*Victory by Fanbase:* The obvious truth of my argument is proven by the fact of my dedicated fanbase. If you had a fanbase then it could fight mine, but you don't, so, you lose again!

*Web of Allusions*: Look, I've said this on the internet (or seen it said) a thousand times. By now it must be true!


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 8, 2010)

Mercule said:


> This one isn't on the list, but I remember it from debate class:  Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  (After that, therefore from that.  If A came before B, A caused B.)
> 
> 4e came after WoW, therefore 4e rules are caused by WoW.



I wonder how many people are like me and learned this from _West Wing_.


----------



## Jack7 (May 8, 2010)

> +1 Funny. I lol'ed at several of those.




Glad you liked em. I forgot a few though as it was so late (or early).


*Inventiarabilis*: Invented evidence and the internet go together like enchanted unicorn glitter horn and golden globet chimera spoor. Therefore, when all else fails, let's get inventive!

*Optimus Toolerus* (aka, _I'm a Power Tool_): By using a clever combination of all available fallacies and assumptions that it is possible to interject into a single argument all at once I can totally optimize my overall Tooliness. I'm maximized! That makes me the kind of Winner I was born to be...


And this one isn't really a method for winning an argument on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter), or effectively arguing a dubious position, but it does happen a lot. And I admit I'm a big offender in this regard.

*Microsofticus:* If you use any Microsoft product as a text editor when on the internet then your argument suffers a natural and inherent grammar and spelling penalty of -3. Yes, Microsoft is fast and conveniently effective, but then again so is an e-coli infection, and sooner or later Microsofticus will damage your _argumentary canal_.


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 8, 2010)

Cosmological Argument

1. I say that something must have cause, so it must have a cause
2. I say that 4e must have a cause
3. Therefore 4e must exist


Ontological Argument

1. I define 4e to be X
2. Since I can conceive of x, x must exist
3. Therefore, 4e exists.

Ontological Argument 2

1 I can conceive of a perfect game.
2 One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
3 Therefore, 4e exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 

1 My aunt had cancer.
2 The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
3 My aunt played 4e and now she doesn't have cancer.
4 Therefore, 4e exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT 
1 In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
2 That all changed once I played 4e.
3 Therefore, 4e exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
1 Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you; it's too complicated for you to understand.  4e  exists whether you like it or not.
2 Therefore, 4e exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
1 Billions of people play 4e.
2 They can't all be wrong, can they?
3 Therefore, 4e exists.


ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
1 Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
2 No one has ever refuted me
3 Therefore, 4e exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
1 4e exists.
2 I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
3 Therefore, 4e exists.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2010)

Jack7 said:


> *Ad Infinitum, or No Mas/No Mas*: If I argue until the other guy gives up or has no more time to continue then I win by virtue of the fact that he ran out of time or interest. With practice and nothing better to do I can eventually win all of my arguments in this way.




And the resultant form:

*Never Give Up, Never Surrender*: The other guy wins if you give up or have no more time to continue, so you hang on well past the point where even you yourself feel there is anything to be gained, but you can't let the other guy win by default.


----------



## Jack7 (May 9, 2010)

> never give up, never surrender: The other guy wins if you give up or have no more time to continue, so you hang on well past the point where even you yourself feel there is anything to be gained, but you can't let the other guy win by default.




qft.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2010)

Umbran said:


> And the resultant form:
> 
> *Never Give Up, Never Surrender*: The other guy wins if you give up or have no more time to continue, so you hang on well past the point where even you yourself feel there is anything to be gained, but you can't let the other guy win by default.




OY!  I resemb... I mean, I resent that.... 

I'm getting better, I swear.

How about 

The over analysis of the Example:

 - When provided with an example, instead of trying to parse the intent of the example, I will hammer away at the example for pages until the disagreement is more about the example than the original point.

and

The Reliance on the Vague:

 - I will use terms that have dozens of internally conflicting meanings and then cry foul when someone interprets my point in a way I don't like.  AKA Using the -y Clause.


----------



## Imaginary Number (May 9, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
> 1 Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you; it's too complicated for you to understand. 4e exists whether you like it or not.
> 2 Therefore, 4e exists.
> 
> ...




I actually think these three are valid.


----------



## jeffh (May 9, 2010)

Wayside said:


> The "that's a fallacy" fallacy, i.e. calling something a fallacy when it isn't. Example: see above.




The fallacy fallacy is legitimate, though chrono22 hasn't quite characterized it correctly. It's the error of assuming that just because one particular argument for a given conclusion is fallacious, the conclusion must be false. This is easily disproven by simply observing that you can make up a fallacious argument for _any_ conclusion, including obviously true ones.


----------



## Jack7 (May 9, 2010)

> Heh. I'm probably guilty of a few of those




I'm sure we all have from time to time, even if we didn't intend to. That's language for ya, and part of being human.




> The Reliance on the Vague:
> 
> - I will use terms that have dozens of internally conflicting meanings and then cry foul when someone interprets my point in a way I don't like. AKA Using the -y Clause.






> The over analysis of the Example:
> 
> - When provided with an example, instead of trying to parse the intent of the example, I will hammer away at the example for pages until the disagreement is more about the example than the original point.




Those two were good twists and obverses of these two:



> Ass-umptus Maximus: You didn't really say this (or that), but I'm assuming it's obviously what you meant, and even if I could easily verify your real point by asking you a few simple questions, it's just more fun to argue my assumption than the exactness of your point. Assumptions are fun after all!






> Misunderstandus Inexplicipus: For some inexplicable reason I cannot yet fathom your point, and so therefore, since you didn't make it plain enough, your reasoning is naturally faulty. (You failed to communicate in such a way that I could easily understand you, therefore, you must be an idiot!)




I think these kinda things are best explained by understanding the inherent limitations of language, but modern folks, especially Geeks and Nerds (and I'm not using those terms in the derogatory sense, but in the descriptive sense) think that human language oughtta work like some kinda current software language, and the truth is it just doesn't and probably never will. So rather than seeking to clarify what might be implied (and human language is filled with _unexpressed_ yet _underlying implications_), each Geek and Nerd has their own "database of denotative definitions" (Geeks especially I have noticed often have a very hard time distinguishing vagueness and metaphor in communications) which they immediately assume must be "correct in all circumstances." The typical Geek does not connote well I have observed, or easily detect implied statements of irony and so forth, and I think this is probably the result of modern society's way of educating people and the current typical and standardized way of using language, like it is a mere *"technical function."* Anyways, that's my observation, and this modern way of using language leads to some silly and amusing arguments to me, because often when I read some argument on the internet the first thought that occurs to me is, "these guys are arguing pretty much the same thing is the same way with pretty much the same language, and they are only off by less than a degree in terminology, yet to them you'd think one guy is speaking Swahili and the other guy a dialect of Apache."

Anyways, it amuses me. By the way I also think that this is why so many Geeks and Nerds like things like Lost, and D&D, and so forth. Vague, implicational, metaphorical, symbolic entertainments return to them in language and form what they have lost from or purged from their own language and everyday, work-a-day_* "idea set."*_ In other words, in other worlds they get to be metaphorical and psychological (as the Greeks meant the term, not as moderns do) and spiritual and symbolic again. I mean, other than just mathematically symbolic.


----------



## Psion (May 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, you ignored the second part of that.  The refusal to clarify your points on the basis that any clarification will also automatically be misunderstood.  I might well have claimed to have been misunderstood.  Sure.  But, I don't think anyone would claim that I'm not stubborn enough to keep trying to make myself understood.
> 
> Misunderstanding is fine.  Asking for clarification is fine.  Refusing to clarify once you've been asked to do so on the basis that the asker will misconstrue every point is not fine.




And my favorite spin on this from days of yore is:

Refusal to read or digest clarifications after they have been offered and keep beating the same strawman. Also, not fine.


----------



## Jack7 (May 9, 2010)

For every Yang... there waits a Yin.


----------



## Maggan (May 9, 2010)

I'm not sure I totally understand what a fallacy is, but I'm offering something which might be a fallacy. I call it

The fallacy of non-transfer

"I hate Game X, so nothing in Game X can be used to enhance Game Y."

Like, if I liked Mindflayers in D&D, and decided to transfer them to WFRP, I could be met with "I don't like D&D, therefore Mindflayers have no place in WFRP".

Would that be a fallacy? Or is it just me rewriting one of the already posted ones?



/M


----------



## Jack7 (May 9, 2010)

> "I hate Game X, so nothing in Game X can be used to enhance Game Y."
> 
> Like, if I liked Mindflayers in D&D, and decided to transfer them to WFRP, I could be met with "I don't like D&D, therefore Mindflayers have no place in WFRP".
> 
> Would that be a fallacy? Or is it just me rewriting one of the already posted ones?




I don't know if you're just rewriting an earlier post or not, but I agree with your sentiment. You do not automatically disregard the importance or viability of a thing just because you do not like a thing. Or put another way, emotional preconceptions are no way to approach the problem of whether a thing will actually work or not. Or whether it will work well or not.

Emotions may make great drives, but they make very poor steering mechanisms.


----------



## Umbran (May 9, 2010)

Jack7 said:


> Emotions may make great drives, but they make very poor steering mechanisms.




Yes. It is important to note one of the great fallacies of discourse (not just about games, but discussion in general) - that positions are rational, rather than rationalized.

A great many decisions humans make seem to be* made based upon emotion and preconception, and the logical analysis for support is made after the fact. And, the sticky part is, since the emotional decision is not a conscious one, the speaker does not necessarily realize that is how their decision was made.  


*seeming established by watching brain activity during decision processes - I don't have the paper references handy, I'm afraid.


----------



## ggroy (May 9, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> No, but it's not my job -- in real-life or on  the Internet -- to provide citations for people who are too lazy to  look them up themselves.




I see.

Sorry if I hit a bad chord on this with you, which brought out some defensiveness on your part.  It was not my intention.

I'll just assume that your belief in reading being correlated to intelligence, was an off the cuff remark related to some past experiences or stuff which was read previously or "folklore".



pawsplay said:


> Compared with "people in general," which includes people who do  not read, people who read for pleasure are significantly more  intelligent.






Jeff Wilder said:


> Then why didn't you ask that and save some  time?  You need to get back to RPGing!




Google was largely ineffective, no matter which keywords I used at first.

Yesterday I asked a former colleague whom has some familiarity with these issues, about where to start looking in particular.  I was directed to several academic authors, for which google brought up some articles of interest.

One is a review of some research studies done on examining reading and how  it relates to various measures of intelligence.  It is consistent with the folklore of a correlation between reading and intelligence.

http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Reading/Useful%20Articles/Cunningham-What%20Reading%20Does%20for%20the%20Mind.pdf

It even examined briefly on television and how it relates to some measures of intelligence.


----------



## jeffh (May 9, 2010)

ggroy said:


> I see.
> 
> Sorry if I hit a bad chord on this with you, which brought out some defensiveness on your part.  It was not my intention.
> 
> I'll just assume that your belief in reading being correlated to intelligence, was an off the cuff remark related to some past experiences or stuff which was read previously or "folklore".



Multiple posters have claimed differently, and you have given no reason for doubting them. In the rest of your post even you admit that you have now verified beyond reasonable doubt that this is more than "folklore". Why, then, would you persist in making such a claim?


----------



## ggroy (May 9, 2010)

jeffh said:


> Multiple posters have claimed differently, and you have given no reason for doubting them. In the rest of your post even you admit that you have now verified beyond reasonable doubt that this is more than "folklore". Why, then, would you persist in making such a claim?




I was looking for whether there was more evidence than just folklore or anecdotal experiences.

Before the issue was even brought up, I suspected there was possibly some positive correlation between reading and intelligence, largely from past experiences and folklore.  How much correlation there was, was not known to me previously.


----------



## ggroy (May 9, 2010)

jeffh said:


> Why, then, would you persist in making such a claim?




Claims to the contrary were just counterexamples I was aware of.  It does  not imply that I believe that there was no correlation between reading and intelligence.

Are you assuming that just because I was making arguments to the contrary, that I actually believed in the contrary?


----------



## jeffh (May 9, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Claims to the contrary were just counterexamples I was aware of.  It does  not imply that I believe that there was no correlation between reading and intelligence.
> 
> Are you assuming that just because I was making arguments to the contrary, that I actually believed in the contrary?




That would be the most likely reason, especially when they're made in what comes across as a surprisingly aggressive manner (albeit not a point where it warranted mod intervention, or anything like that). Other explanations are possible, but would require some, well, explanation.


----------



## ggroy (May 9, 2010)

jeffh said:


> In the rest of your post even you admit that you have now verified beyond reasonable doubt that this is more than "folklore"




"Beyond reasonable doubt" is probably not the best choice of words.

The research studies reviewed in that linked paper, is highly suggestive that the zero correlation scenario of reading vs. intelligence can probably be ruled out in many cases.  This is a more powerful statement.


----------



## ggroy (May 9, 2010)

jeffh said:


> That would be the most likely reason, especially when they're made in what comes across as a surprisingly aggressive manner (albeit not a point where it warranted mod intervention, or anything like that).




Online conversations frequently are perceived that way unfortunately, even when not intentional.

With that being said, outlier points which don't fit in very well into a particular model are what makes things interesting.  In the hard sciences, outliers are usually signs that a particular model may not be entirely correct (after taking account of things like systematic errors in the hardware).  After subtracting out the data which can be explained, the remainder is checked whether it is more than just random noise.  Something which appears to be more than just "random noise", could be something new such as a previously unknown or conjectured elementary particle (for example).

Deviations due to outliers could signify problems in the assumptions underlying a model, or something which was overlooked or not anticipated.  Refining the assumptions and testing for them in later experiments, further examines the nature of such outliers.  This is the biggest reason why so many experiments are done.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 9, 2010)

ggroy said:


> The research studies reviewed in that linked paper, is highly suggestive that the zero correlation scenario of reading vs. intelligence can probably be ruled out in many cases. This is a more powerful statement.



I'm surprised that anyone here would fall for that. People who write intelligence tests read a lot, therefore those who read a lot appear to be more intelligent than those who don't when they take the tests. This is nonsense. They are simply more well read, not neccessarily more intelligent. (Does anyone else remember the big deal about how poor kids came across poorly in the old IQ tests because the social parts were based on what was normal for middle class kids? When the test asked 'what goes with cup' the answer was saucer, but the poor kids never _had_ saucers, so put down table instead.)


----------



## ggroy (May 9, 2010)

Ed_Laprade said:


> (Does anyone else remember the big deal about how poor kids came across poorly in the old IQ tests because the social parts were based on what was normal for middle class kids? When the test asked 'what goes with cup' the answer was saucer, but the poor kids never _had_ saucers, so put down table instead.)




I don't remember that one specifically.

Various IQ tests I've written over the years, indicated I was anything from below average to significantly above average.  After awhile I had no idea what these tests I wrote were attempting to measure.


----------



## blargney the second (May 9, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Various IQ tests I've written over the years, indicated I was anything from below average to significantly above average.  After awhile I had no idea what these tests I wrote were attempting to measure.



IQ tests measure how much you are a middle- or upper-class, English-speaking, North American caucasian.

In a lot of ways they're not too dissimilar to those annoying facebook quizzes that people take to reaffirm how much they are like they think they are.


----------



## ggroy (May 9, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> IQ tests measure how much you are a middle- or upper-class, English-speaking, North American caucasian.
> 
> In a lot of ways they're not too dissimilar to those annoying facebook quizzes that people take to reaffirm how much they are like they think they are.




Seems like it.

One of those "tests" I wrote was actually some Mensa entrance exam.  (My ex-wife was in Mensa, and tried to convince me to join).  I studied for it over several weeks by writing several older sample exams and working out a book full of Mensa exam style problems.  Apparently the real Mensa entrance exam which I actually wrote, indicated that I wasn't considered "Mensa material". 

Go figure.


----------



## Piratecat (May 9, 2010)

The IQ issue isn't a bad topic, but please don't hijack this thread with it. Someone can feel free to start a new thread in Off Topic about IQ if they like.

Thanks.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2010)

ggroy said:


> "Beyond reasonable doubt" is probably not the best choice of words.
> 
> The research studies reviewed in that linked paper, is highly suggestive that the zero correlation scenario of reading vs. intelligence can probably be ruled out in many cases.  This is a more powerful statement.




"Beyond reasonable doubt" does link to a fallacy I think.  (Or maybe not a fallacy, but something I see a lot)

Ignoring the reasonable observer.  Or, failing that, ignoring Occam's razor.  While I might doubt that X is true, I have to stop and ask, "Is X plausible?"  If a reasonable observer would conclude that X is plausible, I probably should accept it, at least provisionally, as true.

As Mr. Occam would say, the simplest answer is the most likely.


----------



## 1Mac (May 10, 2010)

There's a variety of Ad Hominem attack that focuses on association and motivation, rather than the argument itself. For example: "That's sounds suspiciously like the sort of thing a closet OSR advocate would say." Or, "It is clear by now that you are just a 4e fanbot."

Put that way, these are clearly bad arguments, but the reason why may not be obvious. It's not just that the accusation might be obnoxious. It's that, even if the accusation were true, it has no bearing on the argument being made*.

I could be the Grand Kleagle, or a fifth-columnist, or eat kittens, or think Casablanca was a bad movie. Even if true, those qualities will not invalidate my argument. If my argument is invalid, you should be able to show it from the argument itself.

*The exception might be an appeal to your own contested authority. A scientist who makes a bold claim has been caught falsifying data before. A politician claims the mandate of the people, when he has been involved in electoral irregularities in the past. Even then, that may only be reason to give the claim greater scrutiny, not to invalidate it.


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Or, failing that, ignoring Occam's razor.  While I might doubt that X is true, I have to stop and ask, "Is X plausible?"  If a reasonable observer would conclude that X is plausible, I probably should accept it, at least provisionally, as true.




But, you know, a reasonable observer might well (and, in fact for centuries to millennia did) conclude that the Earth being flat, maggots spontaneously generating in meat, and that objects in motion did not tend to stay in motion were all plausible.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> But, you know, a reasonable observer might well (and, in fact for centuries to millennia did) conclude that the Earth being flat, maggots spontaneously generating in meat, and that objects in motion did not tend to stay in motion were all plausible.



Sure, but those examples involve things that are objectively determinable. When discussing RPGs, few things are objective. More often they involve preferences and perceptions.


----------



## Alzrius (May 10, 2010)

I know one that I can't stand is when people make categorical statements about something, like "escapism is dumb." Do people not realize that just because something's true to you, or because something happened one time, that doesn't make it universal?

Categorical statements are stupid.


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Sure, but those examples involve things that are objectively determinable. When discussing RPGs, few things are objective. More often they involve preferences and perceptions.




I don't think there's often a good reason to doubt a statement (about RPGs) of the form, "My personal experience is X."  Objective or subjective doesn't really enter into it.  If I cannot accept your word about what has happened in your own life, why the heck am I talking to you at all?  Unless you're Bugaboo, because then at least the fibs are fun 

So, my thoughts here are pertaining to things of larger scope - assertions that reach beyond your personal experience.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> So, my thoughts here are pertaining to things of larger scope - assertions that reach beyond your personal experience.



Care to elucidate? I'm not sure what you're referring to.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> But, you know, a reasonable observer might well (and, in fact for centuries to millennia did) conclude that the Earth being flat, maggots spontaneously generating in meat, and that objects in motion did not tend to stay in motion were all plausible.




The "reasonable observer" criteria is the basis for much of our society.  If a reasonable observer would conclude that the world was flat, then it is up to the person making the claim to prove differently.  If that person cannot prove it, then the reasonable observer criteria should be followed.

To use an earlier example, a reasonable observer would reject the idea that Gygax is DMing your game from the grave, because the assertion fails a reasonable observer test (do people regularly communicate from the grave?).  The onus then falls to the person making the claim to prove that he's receiving communications from beyond the veil.  

The far more likely event is that the claimant is perhaps using some hardcore hallucinogens.


----------



## The Shaman (May 10, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> In the interest of promoting good discussion, I'd like to use this thread to compile a list of common fallacies made by RPGers.



Games with highly lethal mechanics like save-or-die preclude players from investing in or roleplaying their characters.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 10, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> 1) Appeal to Law:  You must play by RAW or you are having badwrongfun
> 
> 2) Appeal to Probability: 3.5 is broken because it can produce Pun-Pun.
> 
> ...




Aww. . . 



			
				Vbulletin said:
			
		

> You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Stormonu again.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 10, 2010)

"People who play X aren't capable of playing Y. They just aren't smart/clever/cool/imaginative enough."

Where X = D&D and Y= NWoD, for example. Or vice versa.


----------



## Maggan (May 10, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> "People who play X aren't capable of playing Y. They just aren't smart/clever/cool/imaginative enough."




Made me think of this:

"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore everyone who plays Game X hates Game Y."

A nasty variant of this is: 

"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore everyone who _is a true fan of_ Game X hates Game Y."

/M


----------



## Cadfan (May 10, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Made me think of this:
> 
> "I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore everyone who plays Game X hates Game Y."
> 
> ...



"I love Game X, and I hate Game Y.  Therefore, I hate anyone who loves Game Y.  Therefore, because everyone else in the world thinks and reasons like I do, anyone who loves Game Y hates me.  Therefore I am justified in hating them."

This form of reasoning explains a lot of unfortunate facts about our world.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2010)

Maggan said:


> A nasty variant of this is:
> 
> "I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore everyone who _is a true fan of_ Game X hates Game Y."



The Hateful Scotsman Fallacy, perhaps?



Cadfan said:


> "I love Game X, and I hate Game Y. Therefore, I hate anyone who loves Game Y. Therefore, because everyone else in the world thinks and reasons like I do, anyone who loves Game Y hates me. Therefore I am justified in hating them."



The Circular Jerk Fallacy?


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Care to elucidate? I'm not sure what you're referring to.




Sure.

Take the assertion, "Most RPG players are casual, 'beer and pretzel' players."

A reasonable person should (imho) accept this as plausible.  It breaks no major physical law or conflict with known data, so maybe most players are B&P types.  But, that does not mean I should accept the assertion as being true.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Take the assertion, "Most RPG players are casual, 'beer and pretzel' players."
> 
> A reasonable person should (imho) accept this as plausible.  It breaks no major physical law or conflict with known data, so maybe most players are B&P types.  But, that does not mean I should accept the assertion as being true.



Fair enough. That skates pretty close to 'perceptions' to me, since unless you have hard data for that assertion it's based on your own experiences. I agree that it should be accepted as plausible, of course.


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Fair enough. That skates pretty close to 'perceptions' to me, since unless you have hard data for that assertion it's based on your own experiences.




Well, that's kind of the point.  

When someone speaks of their own experiences, the "reasonable observer finds it plausible" guideline makes sense.

When someone speaks on a larger scope - beyond the point that their personal experiences are likely to be a good basis - then that guideline tends to be less reliable.

This boils down to how the statements, "Most gamers are X," and, "In my experience most gamers are X," are in no way equivalent, and we often forget that they aren't interchangeable.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Take the assertion, "Most RPG players are casual, 'beer and pretzel' players."
> 
> A reasonable person should (imho) accept this as plausible.  It breaks no major physical law or conflict with known data, so maybe most players are B&P types.  But, that does not mean I should accept the assertion as being true.




There are some problems with this thinking.  

For example, "Most cats like to swim" breaks no major physical law (are there minor physical laws?) and conflicts with no known data, so maybe most cats do like to swim.  But, that does not mean that I should accept the assertion as being plausible.

As another example, "Bigfoot roams the Pacific Northwest" breaks no major physical law (are there minor physical laws?) and conflicts with no known data, so maybe Bigfoot does roam the Pacific Northwest.  But, that does not mean that I should accept the assertion as being plausible.



Umbran said:


> This boils down to how the statements, "Most gamers are X," and, "In my experience most gamers are X," are in no way equivalent, and we often forget that they aren't interchangeable.




This is true, but again ignores that the "reasonable observer finds it plausible" guideline is, itself, based upon personal observation.  No observer can actually be objective enough to state what a reasonable observer should objectively find plausible.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> This boils down to how the statements, "Most gamers are X," and, "In my experience most gamers are X," are in no way equivalent, and we often forget that they aren't interchangeable.



Yeah, I see what you're saying now.


----------



## Jack7 (May 10, 2010)

The plausible is fine by me as long as it is well
To separate the possible from what the truth will tell,
But when the Truth is measured hard against the plausible
Then plausits are to definite as maybe is to full,

So when we reason by the marks of our experience
There is no sin in stating what we find as commonsense,
Yet Truth may hold another line, and one we cannot read
If all our tales are sole construed by what we will accede,

Today our best apparencies are bred with some pretense
But Truth is valid everywhere, no matter what or whence,
So if the plausible become whatever must be True
It's best to know what likely is and bid the rest adieu.


----------



## Umbran (May 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There are some problems with this thinking.




I wasn't attempting to be anywhere near exhaustive, RC.  Merely trying to be descriptive.

Which brings us to another discussion issue - taking a particular example, and treating it as if all details of it should extend to all examples one can dream up.


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2010)

I believe the idea of Beating the Example into the Ground has actually already been mentioned.

That being said, the "Bigfoot Roams the Northwest" actually fails the reasonable observer test.  After all, no one has any proof whatsoever that this is true.  A reasonable observer isn't limited to what is possible, but must judge what is plausible.  While it is perfectly possible that bigfoot exists, it's isn't very plausible that no one has managed to actually verifiably see it.

Just like the "cats like to swim" example.  While it's perfectly possible that it's true, it's also true that a reasonable observer has seen at some point that house cats (and I'm assuming you mean house cats) don't like water.  This is pretty commonly observable for anyone who has seen house cats (although exceptions do of course exist).

So, a reasonable observer would actually strongly doubt that cats like to swim, not because it's not possible, but because it contradicts what is easily observable.

------------

How about another one:  I'll call it This is MY Game:

All supplements for Game X must cater to my tastes.  Any supplements/products that do not cater to my taste can be used as proof that Company Y has jumped the shark and is, among other things, dumbing down the game, aiming the game at children, ejecting its existing fanbase.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I wasn't attempting to be anywhere near exhaustive, RC.  Merely trying to be descriptive.




Carry on, then.

However, the limitations of the reasonable observer test are, IMHO, reasonable to note.



Hussar said:


> That being said, the "Bigfoot Roams the Northwest" actually fails the reasonable observer test.  After all, no one has any proof whatsoever that this is true.  A reasonable observer isn't limited to what is possible, but must judge what is plausible.




Actually, the reasonable observer test is an attempt to determine what seems plausible by what is believed to be possible, combined with some guesswork as to what the odds of a particular thing being true might be.  And, as I am sure you are aware, there are a great many people willing to deem it "plausible that no one has managed to actually verifiably see it".  If someone should bag a sasquatch tomorrow, it would not be the first large animal to be discovered near a populated area in the last 50 years.



> Just like the "cats like to swim" example.  While it's perfectly possible that it's true, it's also true that a reasonable observer has seen at some point that house cats (and I'm assuming you mean house cats) don't like water.  This is pretty commonly observable for anyone who has seen house cats (although exceptions do of course exist).




So, if I were to tell you that in my experience, cats love to swim, you would find that less plausible than your experience?  

EDIT:  I am not actually advocating Bigfoot or cats liking to swim; I am discussing the limits of the "reasonable person" approach.  What is "reasonable" or "plausible" is always subjective, and is always based on one's own experience.  Even where we include the statements of our friends and/or authorities as evidenciary, doing so is based upon our experience of their reliability, or lack thereof.



RC


----------



## Jhaelen (May 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> That being said, the "Bigfoot Roams the Northwest" actually fails the reasonable observer test.  After all, no one has any proof whatsoever that this is true.



Indeed. To my knowledge, there's not yet been a single sighting of a 'Bigfoot' from a reliable source. What is a 'Bigfoot' supposed to be, anyway? There may be plausible explanations for 'Bigfoot' sightings, but none of them actually require the existance of a 'Bigfoot'.


Hussar said:


> Just like the "cats like to swim" example.  While it's perfectly possible that it's true, it's also true that a reasonable observer has seen at some point that house cats (and I'm assuming you mean house cats) don't like water.  This is pretty commonly observable for anyone who has seen house cats (although exceptions do of course exist).



The important thing here is that there are exceptions. While it may be true that some or even most cats don't like to swim, there is a sufficiently large number of well-documented counter-examples to convince me it's not a general rule (or rather it's a rule with exceptions ).

So, what did RC try to illustrate with these examples again?!

I agree with RC about this, though:


> No observer can actually be objective enough to state what a reasonable observer should objectively find plausible.



This is basically true and the reason for the scientific approach to get objective results:
A scientific thesis is demonstrable using repeatable experimental or mathematical procedures. You don't have to trust anyone's objectivity if everyone can (theoretically) prove something for themselves. If you repeat the experiment/calculation and you get the same results the thesis is plausible.

The objectivity isn't a property of the observers, it's a result of the description of the method to prove it. (Or something like that...)


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Indeed. To my knowledge, there's not yet been a single sighting of a 'Bigfoot' from a reliable source.




Exactly my point.  Rather than agreeing that something is plausable because someone claims to have experienced it, we agree that the statement of experience is likely to be true because we find it plausible.

IOW, some form of valuation takes place prior to determining what testimony should be granted credibility.  Things which conform to our experience (and/or belief system) we tend to find credible; things that do not, less so.  The less a thing conforms to our experience (and/or belief system), the greater the burden of evidence required for us to accept that it is credible.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as Carl Sagan so eloquently put it.

(Also, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.   )



> A scientific thesis is demonstrable using repeatable experimental or mathematical procedures. You don't have to trust anyone's objectivity if everyone can (theoretically) prove something for themselves. If you repeat the experiment/calculation and you get the same results the thesis is plausible.
> 
> The objectivity isn't a property of the observers, it's a result of the description of the method to prove it. (Or something like that...)




Exactly this.

The scientific method, among other things, grants me the ability to make your experience into my strongly repeated experience prior to granting it credibility.


RC


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ahh, but you've changed the example.  It's gone from, "Cats love to swim" to "In my experience cats love to swim".  That's a whole 'nother bag of fish.  The reasonable observer doesn't really apply here because you're only making claims about your experience.  

I suppose I might apply a reasonable observer standard to judge whether or not to believe your experience, but, in this particular case, I would say it's entirely plausible that you have experienced many swimming cats, simply because there are many cats that do like to swim.

However, if you try to move beyond your experience to a general "cats love swimming" then a reasonable observer would probably have a great deal of problem with that because there are many, many cats that certainly don't love swimming.

Going back to the Gygax is my DM thing.  A reasonable observer would reject this out of hand since the idea that Gygax is reaching beyond the grave to run your game is pretty implausible.  

I'm certainly not saying this is the ONLY standard.  But, as a general rule, it's probably one of the first ones that should be applied.  Is the statement plausible is a pretty basic criteria for deciding whether or not to agree with it.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ahh, but you've changed the example.  It's gone from, "Cats love to swim" to "In my experience cats love to swim".  That's a whole 'nother bag of fish.



In most cases, when someone says, "In my experience, _foo_," isn't the person trying to convince someone else of _foo_?  And if he's trying to convince someone else of _foo_, then in what practical sense is it a whole 'nother bag of fish, just because he says, "in my experience"?

(I'll also point out that if, in your experience, _foo_, it's actually completely reasonable for you to believe _foo_, and often completely reasonable for you to try to convince others of _foo_.  In fact, it would be a little odd if you made a habit of _not_ accepting your experience as evidence.)


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 11, 2010)

Jack7 said:


> The plausible is fine by me as long as it is well
> To separate the possible from what the truth will tell,
> But when the Truth is measured hard against the plausible
> Then plausits are to definite as maybe is to full,
> ...




You need to give proper credit to the person who originally wrote it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Ahh, but you've changed the example.  It's gone from, "Cats love to swim" to "In my experience cats love to swim".  That's a whole 'nother bag of fish.  The reasonable observer doesn't really apply here because you're only making claims about your experience.




Claims about my experience have no more validity than any other claims, simply on the basis that I am claiming it to be my experience.

"In my experience, the ghost of Gary Gygax DMs regularly at my house."

"In my experience, the Bigfoot is one of the players, and he argues with the DM."

"In my experience, the Loch Ness Monster usually brings chips."



> I suppose I might apply a reasonable observer standard to judge whether or not to believe your experience




I should hope so.



> in this particular case, I would say it's entirely plausible that you have experienced many swimming cats, simply because there are many cats that do like to swim.




Are there?  Is it really plausible?  Or is it more plausible that I just made that up as a wacky-but-within-the-realm-of-possibility example?



> Going back to the Gygax is my DM thing.  A reasonable observer would reject this out of hand since the idea that Gygax is reaching beyond the grave to run your game is pretty implausible.




Sure, but if you examine why it is implausible, it is only because the terms of the statement are contrary to experience.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> In most cases, when someone says, "In my experience, _foo_," isn't the person trying to convince someone else of _foo_?  And if he's trying to convince someone else of _foo_, then in what practical sense is it a whole 'nother bag of fish, just because he says, "in my experience"?
> 
> (I'll also point out that if, in your experience, _foo_, it's actually completely reasonable for you to believe _foo_, and often completely reasonable for you to try to convince others of _foo_.  In fact, it would be a little odd if you made a habit of _not_ accepting your experience as evidence.)




Indeed.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> In fact, it would be a little odd if you made a habit of _not_ accepting your experience as evidence.



On the other hand, it can be a bit limiting to accept one's own experiences as the only relevant evidence.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> On the other hand, it can be a bit limiting to accept one's own experiences as the only relevant evidence.




That is absolutely true.

However, it is the relationship between one's own experience, and what one is being told is anothers' experience, that determines the amount of credence one gives that testimony.

Thus, if you tell me "I like Doritos", I am likely to accept that as true.

If you tell me "I have seen bigfoot", I may believe that _*you believe this*_, but I am unlikely to believe that you are correct.

If you tell me "The ghost of Gary Gygax DMs games at my house", I am unlikely even to believe that you believe that.

In none of those case, though, do I know that my conclusions are correct.  What I am estimating is _*how likely I believe my conclusion to be correct*_ when I decide that I believe you, I believe you believe something you are mistaken about, or I believe that you are just making up some wackly BS.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> In most cases, when someone says, "In my experience, _foo_," isn't the person trying to convince someone else of _foo_?  And if he's trying to convince someone else of _foo_, then in what practical sense is it a whole 'nother bag of fish, just because he says, "in my experience"?



There can be a difference, depending on exactly what about _foo _you're trying to prove.

If you say "Based on my experience, _foo_", a reasonable observer should conclude that _foo _happening is plausible. He should not, however, conclude that foo is the only thing that happens.

Let's say you say "In my games, no one ever plays an elf." A reasonable observer should conclude that _some people don't like to play elves_. He should *not *conclude that _no one in any game like to play an elf_. The second conclusion moves beyond what can be determined from personal observation.

This relates to the idea that anecdotes aren't useful to prove things, but they can be useful to disprove things. If you say "No one likes to play an elf", all it takes is one example of a person who like to play an elf to disprove your claim.



The Shaman said:


> On the other hand, it can be a bit limiting to accept one's own experiences as the only relevant evidence.



Indeed, well said.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 11, 2010)

The Shaman said:


> On the other hand, it can be a bit limiting to accept one's own experiences as the only relevant evidence.



More than a "bit limiting."  Probably indicative of mental disorder.  (E.g., I've never been to France, yet I believe to a very high standard of proof that France exists.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If you say "Based on my experience, _foo_", a reasonable observer should conclude that _foo _happening is plausible.




Based on my experience, the ghost of Gary Gygax runs games at my house for myself, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster.

A reasonable observer should conclude that _the ghost of Gary Gygax running games at my house for myself, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster_ is plausible?


RC


----------



## ggroy (May 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> This relates to the idea that anecdotes aren't useful to prove things, but they can be useful to disprove things. If you say "No one likes to play an elf", all it takes is one example of a person who like to play an elf to disprove your claim.




This is the gist of philosopher Karl Popper's ideas on falsification.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> If you say "Based on my experience, _foo_", a reasonable observer should conclude that _foo _happening is plausible.



This depends on what _foo_ is.  This depends upon who the speaker is, from the perspective of the reasonable observer.  This depends on the quantity and quality of the reasonable observer's own experience.  This depends on the context of both the speaker's claimed experience and the reasonable observer's experience.  And so on and so on.

Richard Dawkins has postulated that the ability to believe someone else without question was once important to individual survival.  If that's true, I, like Mr. Dawkins, believe that that particular behavior is now counter-productive.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

ggroy said:


> This is the gist of philosopher Karl Popper's ideas on falsification.
> 
> Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




This is absolutely true, but Karl Popper doesn't suggest that the statement "All swans are white" is disproven *simply because I say I saw a black swan*.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> This depends on what _foo_ is.  This depends upon who the speaker is, from the perspective of the reasonable observer.  This depends on the quantity and quality of the reasonable observer's own experience.  This depends on the context of both the speaker's claimed experience and the reasonable observer's experience.  And so on and so on.



...so generalities are bad....



Jeff Wilder said:


> Richard Dawkins has postulated that the ability to believe someone else without question was once important to individual survival.  If that's true, I, like Mr. Dawkins, believe that that particular behavior is now counter-productive.



...and good?

Obviously there are all kinds of details being glossed over when speaking in generalities. But as the one who introduced _foo _into the conversation, I would think you wouldn't ming speaking in generalities. If you start arguing in terms of vague generalities, you can't turn around and refute someone else's argument by saying it's a generality. That's surely a fallacy by itself.

To go along with Dawkins, arguably you should question anything that someone tells you. But, since generalities don't always apply, you need to apply different standards of evidence to different claims. If someone says "Gygax's ghost visits me in my living room", that requires a great deal of evidence before it should be accepted. If someone says "I like to play this game a bit differently than you do", an entirely different standard should be applied.


----------



## ggroy (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> This depends on what _foo_ is.  This depends upon who the speaker is, from the perspective of the reasonable observer.  This depends on the quantity and quality of the reasonable observer's own experience.  This depends on the context of both the speaker's claimed experience and the reasonable observer's experience.  And so on and so on.




The veracity of a particular speaker, I suspect may be niche dependent.

For example, if one my mathematician friends mentioned a particular theorem has been proven, I would probably take them at their word even without checking the proof in full detail myself.

On the other hand, I would be somewhat more skeptical of my economist friends when they attempt to explain why the great depression went on for so long.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Obviously there are all kinds of details being glossed over when speaking in generalities. But as the one who introduced _foo _into the conversation, I would think you wouldn't ming speaking in generalities.



I introduced _foo_ into the conversation because whatever _foo_ is standing in for isn't important.  But that doesn't mean I was speaking in generalities.  In point of fact, I was being fairly specific about methods of evaluating evidence.  You seem confused.



> If you start arguing in terms of vague generalities, you can't turn around and refute someone else's argument by saying it's a generality. That's surely a fallacy by itself.



Now I'm confused.  I have no idea what you're talking about.



> To go along with Dawkins, arguably you should question anything that someone tells you.



That's a misstatement of Dawkins, and it's a misstatement of my paraphrase of Dawkins.



> But, since generalities don't always apply, you need to apply different standards of evidence to different claims.



Your tone suggests that you're arguing, but this is basically a restatement of what I said upthread.

In case this is what you mean:

"If someone says, 'In my experience, _foo_,' you should accept _foo_ as plausible" seems pretty much exactly what you claimed upthread.

So let me address this with complete specificity: That statement isn't one of helpful generality.  That statement is simply wrong.

_Foo_ isn't necessarily wrong.

"In my experience, _foo_" isn't necessarily wrong.

"If someone says, 'In my experience, _foo_,' you should accept _foo_ as plausible" _is_ wrong.  And worse.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> "If someone says, 'In my experience, _foo_,' you should accept _foo_ as plausible" _is_ wrong.  And worse.



Yes, I left off all kinds of provisos because we're speaking in generalities. That's what happens when you speak in generalities. And yes, you are speaking in generalities. Your post that started this exchange included phrases such as "In most cases" and "often completely reasonable." Those are generalities.

But it's this generality I'm trying to zero in on:

_"I'll also point out that if, in your experience, _foo_, it's actually completely reasonable for you to believe _foo"

This reasonableness of this depends on how you are extrapolating _foo_. If, at your table, no one likes to play elves, it's obviously reasonable to believe that _some people do not like to play elves_. You've seen people who don't like to play elves, so you're quite sure such people exist. It is *not* reasonable to believe that _no one likes to play elves_, based solely on your experience. That goes well beyond what you can reasonably infer based on personal experience alone.

That's the difference between "In my experience, no one plays elves" and "No one plays elves". The truth of the first does nothing to prove the second, nor does it do anything to disprove "Some people play elves."


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> _"I'll also point out that if, in your experience, _foo_, it's actually completely reasonable for you to believe _foo"
> 
> This reasonableness of this depends on how you are extrapolating _foo_. If, at your table, no one likes to play elves, it's obviously reasonable to believe that _some people do not like to play elves_. You've seen people who don't like to play elves, so you're quite sure such people exist. It is *not* reasonable to believe that _no one likes to play elves_, based solely on your experience.



Of course it is.  (Are you  "kidding me?" <I haven't had to make a grandma-friendly edit in a long time.> ~ PCat)

If _all you have_ as the basis for a belief is your experience, it is completely reasonable to hold that belief. This is so basic, and so obvious, I'm flabbergasted you'd claim otherwise.

Now it's true that it's very rare that one would be basing a belief "solely on [one's] experience," but in those instances where it's the only evidence available, or you judge other evidence to be very weak, it's completely reasonable to base your belief -- _any_ belief -- "solely on your experience."



> That goes well beyond what you can reasonably infer based on personal experience alone.



No, it doesn't.  It may go beyond what you can reasonably infer "based on personal experience" and in light of other contrasting evidence, but if that's what you mean, that's what you should say.


----------



## Jack7 (May 11, 2010)

> You need to give proper credit to the person who originally wrote it.




I wrote it DC. If you ever see me throw up a poem or lyric and I don't attribute it, or say it was written by Yeats, or something like that, chances are I wrote it.

As my wife and friends say, "You have a bad habit of saying things in verse."

The truth of that just might be so,
But for it I'm the worse...


Is verse then dichotomy
If meanings so are split?
I really cannot answer that -
But friends I must admit;

A falseness can from twisted verse
Arise beneath the truth,
And so the right becomes the wrong
A guile from fresh forsooth;

So fallacy, or as it be,
You'll find them both a'line (or, aligned)
Where meter masters o'er speech
And secrets hide in rhymes;

That may be why I write in verse
If fancy takes me there,
For am I speaking fair or curse?
Like you I'm unaware?

But one thing is for sure in this
I probably mean 'em both,
And if you get my purport then
You'll understand my quoth...


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> If _all you have_ as the basis for a belief is your experience, it is completely reasonable to hold that belief. This is so basic, and so obvious, I'm flabbergasted you'd claim otherwise.



Since that would be flabbergasting, then perhaps there's another explanation? One that involves the limitations of communicating in short written paragraphs, for instance.

Yes, I am discussing situations where someone is presented with evidence  that conflicts with their personal experiences. In such a case it is not reasonable to reject said evidence solely because it conflicts with your personal experience.

_Is it reasonable for someone to accept the evidence is plausible_? That's the point under discussion.

A: "No one plays elves. I believe this because no one in my experience has ever played an elf."

B: "People in my games play elves all the time."

A: "But I've never seen anyone play an elf, so what you're saying can't be true."


----------



## Umbran (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> "If someone says, 'In my experience, _foo_,' you should accept _foo_ as plausible" _is_ wrong.  And worse.






Jeff Wilder said:


> Of course it is.  (Are you yanking my dick?)
> 
> If _all you have_ as the basis for a belief is your experience, it is completely reasonable to hold that belief. This is so basic, and so obvious, I'm flabbergasted you'd claim otherwise.




Wait a minute...

It looks like you are arguing that:  

1) If someone says "in my experience, foo" you should not necessarily take foo as plausible.

2) However, if it is in your experience, it is reasonable to believe that foo is the case, and is thus plausible.

Correct me if I am incorrect in the above, as to me, they don't seem to mesh very well.

If you are correct in (1), then who says it is not relevant.  If *I* say "in my experience, foo", then *I* should not necessarily take foo as plausible, either.

I see this as a good thing, actually.  An admission that my experience of foo may be faulty in some way - maybe it is a local aberration, or an error of perception on my part, or one of many other issues.  It is the admission that "my experience" has limitations.

I've been trying to argue that if someone says "my experience is foo", then it is probably plausible that _their experience_ is foo.  Taking foo in general as plausible is another issue.


----------



## ggroy (May 11, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Yes, I am discussing situations where someone is presented with evidence  that conflicts with their personal experiences. In such a case it is not reasonable to reject said evidence solely because it conflicts with your personal experience.
> 
> _Is it reasonable for someone to accept the evidence is plausible_? That's the point under discussion.




The mental reflex of discounting (or outright rejecting) evidence which conflicts with one's own personal experiences/biases/perception/etc ..., is a cognitive bias which has been extensively researched.  In practice, it is not that easy to overcome.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

ggroy said:


> The mental reflex of discounting (or outright rejecting) evidence which conflicts with one's own personal experiences/biases/perception/etc ..., is a cognitive bias which has been extensively researched.  In practice, it is not that easy to overcome.
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Yes, but that still doesn't turn anecdote into evidence.

_Is it reasonable for someone to accept the _*anecdote*_ is plausible? _That's the point under discussion.

A: "No one is an elf. I believe this because no one in my experience has ever been an elf."

B: "I see elves all the time."

A: "But I've never seen an elf, so what you're saying is probably not true."


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> If *I* say "in my experience, foo", then *I* should not necessarily take foo as plausible, either.




This is true, but it ignores that you can be a better judge of your experience than you can be of anyone else's.  Your experience of foo may be faulty in some way -- "my experience" has limitations -- but it is a foolish man indeed who assumes that his experience is invalid simply because it might be invalid.

To take an obvious example, it is probably your experience that the world around you exists.  Indeed, it is probably your overwhelming experience that the world around you exists.  However, you have no way of knowing this to be the case (your experience could be illusory).

Now, were I to tell you that my experience is that the world is illusory....that I can do "Neo in the Matrix" things.....is it still probably plausible that my experience is foo?  I would suggest that it is not.  Moreover, I would suggest that it is not plausible for the simple reason that my statement doesn't have sufficient evidenciary value to overweigh your experience in the matter.

If everyone you knew made the same claim, even if they couldn't demonstrate it to you (perhaps you have to believe to see?), it still might not be enough evidence to convince you.  Or it might; it depends upon the barrier of your skepticism.  You would have to make some best guess at the odds that you are wrong in your experience/your interpretation of your experience.

The point is, though, that your skepticism _per se_ isn't irrational.



> I've been trying to argue that if someone says "my experience is foo", then it is probably plausible that _their experience_ is foo.




However, it is the relationship between one's own experience, and what one is being told is anothers' experience, that determines the amount of credence one gives that testimony.

Thus, if you tell me "I like Doritos", I am likely to accept that as true.  (I.e., it is plausible that your experience is foo, and foo is plausible as well.)

If you tell me "I have seen bigfoot", I may believe that you believe this, but I am unlikely to believe that you are correct.  (I.e., it may be plausible that your experience is foo. Taking foo in general as plausible is another issue.)

If you tell me "The ghost of Gary Gygax DMs games at my house", I am unlikely even to believe that you believe that.  (I.e., not only is it not plausible that foo in general is plausible, it is not plausible that your experience is foo.)

In none of those case, though, do I know that my conclusions are correct. What I am estimating is how likely I believe my conclusion to be correct when I decide that I believe you, I believe you believe something you are mistaken about, or I believe that you are just making up some wackly BS.


RC


----------



## ggroy (May 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes, but that still doesn't turn anecdote into evidence.
> 
> _Is it reasonable for someone to accept the _*anecdote*_ is plausible? _That's the point under discussion.




(An example to clarify things).

One runs a computer to test out whether Fermat's Last Theorem is true. 

"No three positive integers  _a_, _b_, and _c_ can satisfy the equation _a__^n_ + _b^__n_ = _c^__n_  for any integer value of _n_ greater than two".

Fermat's Last Theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One runs a computer program and notices this is true up to very large integers n (greater than two), and positive integers a, b, and c up to very large numbers which the computer can handle.

Would this be anecdote or evidence, in support of Fermat's Last Theorem?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It looks like you are arguing that:
> 
> 1) If someone says "in my experience, foo" you should not necessarily take foo as plausible.
> 
> ...



Of course it's relevant.  That's (part of) what the "necessarily" part means.



> If *I* say "in my experience, foo", then *I* should not necessarily take foo as plausible, either.



If I were you, I might feel the same way.  (Couldn't resist.  Sorry.)



> I've been trying to argue that if someone says "my experience is foo", then it is probably plausible that _their experience_ is foo.



Why in the world does it matter if it's plausible that their experience is _foo_?  And how in the world do you make that judgment without making some kind of judgment on _foo_ itself?

Look, people in the card rooms tell me (_constantly_) things like, "I once hit three royal flushes in five hands."  They are claiming that experience.

I disbelieve them.  They could be accurately describing their experience, but I disbelieve them because I know how remote the possibility is of what they describe.  In order to judge the "plausibility" of what they say is their experience, I can judge the plausibility of the experience itself.  There are other ways to judge the plausibility of their "claim of experience," and if i have those available, I'll use them, too.

What I'm never -- ever -- going to do is accept the claim of an experience as "plausible" solely because someone states that claim.  And anybody who does ... well, good luck to 'em.


----------



## ggroy (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Look, people in the card rooms tell me (_constantly_) things like, "I once hit three royal flushes in five hands."  They are claiming that experience.
> 
> I disbelieve them.  They could be accurately describing their experience, but I disbelieve them because I know how remote the possibility is of what they describe.




I have several friends who are hardcore poker players, whom constantly talk about experiences like that.  Every time I ask them about whether it is luck, they usually discount that it may be due to just luck, while completely believing it is some innate skill or "magic touch" they have.  Usually I don't say much about it afterward, and drop the discussion.  Explaining the mathematical probabilities behind poker, just goes in one ear and out the other with these particular friends.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

ggroy said:


> One runs a computer program and notices this is true up to very large integers n (greater than two), and positive integers a, b, and c up to very large numbers which the computer can handle.
> 
> Would this be anecdote or evidence, in support of Fermat's Last Theorem?





Who is the "one"?

I run a computer program and notice that this is true is evidence (to me) and anecdote (to you).  After all, you have only my statement that it is so, and, like your poker-playing buddies with the "magic touch", my statement is subject to question.

This is, AFAICT and in accordance with my education, an important part of the scientific method.  You do not have to trust my word; you can repeat the experiment yourself.  You can build up your own experiences through conducting the experiment yourself.  If your experiences contradict mine, you should not take mine as evidence.

At some point, of course, the number of experiments you'd have to do to gain evidence becomes too great, and requires too great an expense.  That is why the scientific community uses peer review and independent confirmation of experiments.  The value of these is no less, and no more, than the value one places on the truthfulness, diligence, and intelligence/understanding of those involved.

Testimony is only evidence (to you) if it passes your personal barrier of skepticism.  

The less a claim conforms to your expectations (based on your experience and your interpretation of experience), the greater the barrier of skepticism.  For most people, anyway.



RC


----------



## ggroy (May 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Who is the "one"?




Me.  

I have written such a program in the past before.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> What I'm never -- ever -- going to do is accept the claim of an experience as "plausible" solely because someone states that claim.  And anybody who does ... well, good luck to 'em.





Please define the word "gullible".


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 11, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Look, people in the card rooms tell me (_constantly_) things like, "I once hit three royal flushes in five hands."  They are claiming that experience.
> 
> I disbelieve them.  They could be accurately describing their experience, but I disbelieve them because I know how remote the possibility is of what they describe.



Probability is objective. It obeys mathematical laws. By contrast what works in a rpg is incredibly subjective. Rpgs are art. In a highly subjective field, individual experience is king.

A: I really enjoyed that movie.
B: No you didn't.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 11, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> A: I really enjoyed that movie.
> B: No you didn't.



So ... what you're getting from this is that someone is claiming they would dispute someone else's statement of preference?  Really?

If Umbran wants to amend his argument to "If someone claims to have a preference for _foo_, I'll accept his claim as plausible," he's free to do so.  It's certainly a much more reasonable thing to say.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Look, people in the card rooms tell me (_constantly_) things like, "I once hit three royal flushes in five hands."  They are claiming that experience.
> 
> I disbelieve them.



As would I, because an experience like that has a determinable mathematical probability, in this case one that is exceedingly small. In many cases with RPGs, you're dealing only with preferences, where you can't determine such probabilities. In such cases you just have to apply your reason. "Does it seem plausible that some people like playing elves, even though I've never met one?" That's where the reasonable observer test comes in.



Jeff Wilder said:


> What I'm never -- ever -- going to do is accept the claim of an experience as "plausible" solely because someone states that claim.  And anybody who does ... well, good luck to 'em.



No one's asking you to.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> So ... what you're getting from this is that someone is claiming they would dispute someone else's statement of preference?  Really?



I can provide an example of that from another thread, if you like.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 12, 2010)

I find that whenever anyone calls me "Foo" I can safely ignore their opinions on everything...





... unless they are this guy:


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> In none of those case, though, do I know that my conclusions are correct. What I am estimating is how likely I believe my conclusion to be correct when I decide that I believe you, I believe you believe something you are mistaken about, or I believe that you are just making up some wackly BS.
> 
> ...




And that's all we can do.  Make estimates and "best guesses" as to whether or not to accept Foo as plausible.  No one has tried to argue that the "reasonable observer" standard is proof.  It's simply that if you attempt to reject plausible explanations in favour of your own pet theory, you're likely wrong.

And by you, I mean the royal you, not the you=RC.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 12, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> I can provide an example of that from another thread, if you like.



Please do.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 12, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> No one's asking you to [accept someone's statement of experience as plausible].



Are you even reading this thread?



Umbran said:


> I've been trying to argue that if someone says "my experience is foo", then it is probably plausible that _their experience_ is foo.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Are you even reading this thread?



I am, yes, thanks.

The quote from Umbran seems to match your criteria, but you're ignoring the context of the discussion: the reasonable observer test. No one's asking you to accept _anything _anyone ever says is their experience.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2010)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Look, people in the card rooms tell me (_constantly_) things like, "I once hit three royal flushes in five hands."  They are claiming that experience.




We aren't in a card room.  We are on EN World.  If I recall correctly, I began this all specifically noting the context, of talking about rpgs.  While perhaps you've stepped out of that context, I haven't.



> I disbelieve them.




There is a difference between believing that an event happened, and accepting the same is plausible.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> And that's all we can do.  Make estimates and "best guesses" as to whether or not to accept Foo as plausible.




Give the man an apple; he's got it.


RC


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Give the man an apple; he's got it.
> 
> 
> RC




What did I get?  This is what I've been arguing since this whole roundabout began.  At no point did I state that you HAD to believe the other person.  

However, the fallacy in question is whether or not, even though you don't believe foo to be true, foo would be plausible to a reasonable observer.  If it is plausible, you can disbelieve it all you like, but, you're simply stating your totally unfounded gut reaction (unless you can bring more evidence to the table).

A:  I experienced foo.
B:  I don't believe you.
A:  Well, there's nothing I can really do beyond state my experience with foo.
B:  Your experience is faulty.
A:  Why do you say that?  Do you have any additional evidence?
B:  No, but, I just don't believe you experienced foo.

B is in the wrong here.  So long as A's experience is reasonable and plausible, then, unless B has some fairly strong evidence to the contrary, B has no real reason, beyond his or her own biases, for disbelieving A.

Personal bias makes a really poor reason.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> B is in the wrong here.  So long as A's experience is reasonable and plausible, then, unless B has some fairly strong evidence to the contrary, B has no real reason, beyond his or her own biases, for disbelieving A.




If you want to have a conversation _with_ someone (as opposed to _at_ someone - to lecture to them, for example), such that there's some two-way give and take of ideas, there needs to be some baseline acceptance that what the other person says has some weight.  

You cannot learn from the experience of others if you refuse to grant that said experience may have happened.

And, on a purely social level, what is good for the goose is good for the gander - if you aren't willing to extend them a base level of credulity, there's no good reason for them to extend the same to you.  At which point, it makes me wonder why the two are even having the conversation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> At no point did I state that you HAD to believe the other person.




Well, I thought you had it.  

Why is B in the wrong in your hypothetical discussion:  

A:  I experienced foo.
B:  I don't believe you.
A:  Well, there's nothing I can really do beyond state my experience with foo.
B:  Your experience is faulty.
A:  Why do you say that?  Do you have any additional evidence?
B:  No, but, I just don't believe you experienced foo.​
For example:

A:  I experienced an alien abduction.
B:  I don't believe you.
A:  Well, there's nothing I can really do beyond state my experience with alien abduction.
B:  Your experience is faulty.
A:  Why do you say that?  Do you have any additional evidence?
B:  No, but, I just don't believe you experienced an alien abduction.​
Now, maybe B is wrong in that A really experienced an alien abduction, and maybe B is correct in that A is wrong (due to misinterpretation of data, or sheer BS).

You say that, "So long as A's experience is reasonable and plausible, then, unless B has some fairly strong evidence to the contrary, B has no real reason, beyond his or her own biases, for disbelieving A." but you ignore a few fundamental criteria:

(1)  What is reasonable and plausible is not objective, but is based on the experience (and hence barrier to skepticism) of the person being asked to believe something.  I know people who would take "I experienced an alien abduction" as being reasonable and plausible.  Does this make it so?

(2)  A statement of experience is not evidence.  For instance, in (1), above, I said I knew people who would take "I experienced an alien abduction" as being reasonable and plausible.  Is this reasonable and plausible?  Do you assume it to be true that I know such people, or do you consider the possibility that these people exist only in this post, and only to forward a line of reasoning made on the InterWeb?

I would posit that, when I say, "My experience is X" the only thing you actually _*know*_ is that I said "My experience is X".  You choose to believe or disbelieve based upon what you know about me, and based upon what you know about X.  My experience may or may not be X; you are either right or wrong in what you choose to believe.  

But you have no way to determine whether you are right or wrong.

Personal bias may make "a really poor reason", but believing that you are making rational choices from any other basis is a worse one.

So, to use your example again, I would suggest that the actual conversation goes like this:

A: I experienced foo.
B: I don't believe you.
A: Well, there's nothing I can really do beyond state my experience with foo.
B: Well, you may believe that you experienced foo, but I doubt that you actually did so.
A: Why do you say that? Do you have any additional evidence?
B: Well, first off, your statement alone isn't evidence that you experienced foo, although from what I know about you, I believe that you think you did.  On the other hand, I have a lot of experience with the matter to which foo pertains, and I have known a lot of generally honest people who have claimed to experience foo.  When we examined their claims, they were found to be faulty.  I have come to the conclusion that foo probably doesn't exist, and that people who claim to have experienced foo are probably mistaken.  I might be wrong in this, but it would take a lot more evidence than your claim to make me believe so.​


Umbran said:


> If you want to have a conversation _with_ someone (as opposed to _at_ someone - to lecture to them, for example), such that there's some two-way give and take of ideas, there needs to be some baseline acceptance that what the other person says has some weight.




I think that you are ignoring the format of the InterWeb here.

If you and I were sitting in a pub, and I had access to your facial expressions and body weight, I would feel it more likely that I could correctly access the veracity of any claim you might make.  Moreover, I feel it likely that body language and facial expressions would help to bridge problems caused by the nature of language.  Finally, I would give your words additional weight on the basis of having chosen to have the conversation specifically with *you*.

On the InterWeb, however, some of that interaction is correction.  You say X, I say you mean Y, and even if you aren't interested in my opinion _per se_ (having decided that I was the kind of person who would say I knew people who would take "I experienced an alien abduction" as being reasonable and plausible just to ensure my argument was ironclad, for example), you might feel the need to correct my statement as to what you mean.  

Not because you are interested in what *I* think, but simply because you don't want my statement to colour the opinions of *others*, whose experiences you are interested in/grant greater plausibility.

Example:

You, I, and Piratecat are discussing the plausibility of the Loch Ness Monster on an InterWeb Forum.

You say, "I do not find the Loch Ness Monster credible, because of various reasons X, Y, and Z."

I say, "I've seen the Loch Ness Monster several times, and know for a fact that it exists.  Moreover, I've had Nessie over for tea twice last year.  If the only reason you don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster is A, you have a real problem."

Piratecat then says, "A is not a good reason."

Even though, in this example, my claims are completely unreasonable, and/or implausible, we all know Piratecat is a pretty smart guy, so you might actually wish to ensure that Piratecat doesn't go away thinking your reasoning is A, rather than the far more clear and cogent X, Y, and Z.  

And if, no matter what you say to Piratecat, I keep jumping in with A, you might find yourself addressing my claims even though you wouldn't actually choose to have that discussion with me in a pub over a pint.

You are trapped by the nature of the InterWeb.

The "two are even having the conversation" because my comments impinge upon and influence the conversation you actually want to have.​


> And, on a purely social level, what is good for the goose is good for the gander - if you aren't willing to extend them a base level of credulity, there's no good reason for them to extend the same to you.




I've said this before, and it remains true.  Both goose and gander should use critical thinking before accepting anyone's testimony as gospel.  I've said, more than once, that this applies to my testimony as much as it applies to your own.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You cannot learn from the experience of others if you refuse to grant that said experience may have happened.




One more thing here.

It may be true that you cannot learn from the experience of others if you refuse to grant that said experience may have happened, but you _*can*_ learn from the _*statements of experience*_ of others if you refuse to grant that said experience may have happened -- what you learn just might not be what those others intend.  


RC


----------



## Scribble (May 12, 2010)

Umm... so if some people don't accept the plausibility that what others say just might be plausible, and that they might be wrong about the plausibility of their own experiences always trumping the plausibility of other experiences, then it might be plausible that they will never accept the plausibility of what they think is not plausible being actually entirely plausible, which makes it also completely plausible that this threadjack about plausibility will never in fact end.  Unless of course your experiences indicate otherwise- but THAT'S obviously not plausible.

Leeeeeet's doooooo the time waaaaaarp nooooooow.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2010)

> (1) What is reasonable and plausible is not objective, but is based on the experience (and hence barrier to skepticism) of the person being asked to believe something. I know people who would take "I experienced an alien abduction" as being reasonable and plausible. Does this make it so?




Thus the idea of the "reasonable observer".  You are not the reasonable observer because you're involved in the conversation.  Whether or not I doubt the veracity of the claim of alien abduction has nothing to do with whether or not a reasonable observer would.

My own biased gut reaction should not be my basis for believing you.  I should possess the wherewithall to step back and look at the claim with at least an eye for objectivity.  Maybe I REALLY want to believe in alien abduction.  However, again, a reasonable observer wouldn't.  Sure, I can jump right in and say, "Wow, gosh tell me more" but, I should also be having some pretty strong reservations about accepting your claims simply because they are so far out there.

I don't think it's all that unreasonable to expect people to retain a certain objectivity when discussing an issue.  That when their pet projects and pet peeves might interfere with that objectivity, and the other person calls attention to the fact that those beliefs are based solely on personal bias, the person should be able to step back and recognize that fact.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as the saying goes.

However, if we pull back from the extraordinary claims, and look at ones that are probably more in line with every day conversation, then disbelieving perfectly plausible claims based solely on my own experience is a bad thing to do.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> However, if we pull back from the extraordinary claims, and look at ones that are probably more in line with every day conversation, then disbelieving perfectly plausible claims based solely on my own experience is a bad thing to do.



This is especially true when discussing personal preferences, which is often the case when talking about RPGs. There is a world of difference between claiming that you were abducted by aliens (a physical event, that would be verifiable if it had witnesses), and claiming that you enjoy playing an elf in a particular way. One has to do with something that actually happens, while the other describes a personal feeling.

So arguing that any "claim" one is presented with should be treated in the same manner is not valid, IMO. Standards of evidence are very different, depending on the claim. "I like to imagine that I'm an elf _this_ way" is not something that you can say "Prove it!" to.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Thus the idea of the "reasonable observer".




But, again, the "reasonable observer" is one who correlates what he is being asked to believe based upon his experience.  An unreasonable observer would be one who dismissed his experience prior to determining plausibility.

(For further reading see David Hume's _On Miracles_, David Hume: On Miracles )



			
				David Hume said:
			
		

> A WISE man proportions his belief to the evidence. In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event.
> 
> In other cases he proceeds with more caution. He weighs the opposite experiments. He considers which side is supported by the greatest number of experiments; to that side he inclines with doubt and hesitation, and when at last he fixes his judgement, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability. All probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations, where the one side is found to over-balance the other and to produce a degree of evidence proportioned to the superiority.
> 
> When the fact attested is such a one as has seldom fallen under our observation, there is a contest of two possible experiences, of which the one destroys the other as far as its force goes, and the superior can only operate on the mind by the force which remains. The very same principle of experience which gives us a certain degree of assurance in the testimony of witnesses gives us also, in this case, another degree of assurance against the fact which they endeavour to establish, from which consideration there necessarily arises a counterpoise, and mutual destruction of belief and authority.






			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> You are not the reasonable observer because you're involved in the conversation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't think it's all that unreasonable to expect people to retain a certain objectivity when discussing an issue.




Please make up your mind.  



> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof as the saying goes.




Yes, but what defines an extraordinary claim?  What defines a perfectly plausible claim?

Solely one's own experience.  If you have some other way to determine what is an extraordinary claim, and what is a plausible claim, please share.  You will have done something that the greatest minds in the entire history of philosophy has failed to do!


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Umm... so if some people don't accept the plausibility that what others say just might be plausible, and that they might be wrong about the plausibility of their own experiences always trumping the plausibility of other experiences, then it might be plausible that they will never accept the plausibility of what they think is not plausible being actually entirely plausible, which makes it also completely plausible that this threadjack about plausibility will never in fact end.  Unless of course your experiences indicate otherwise- but THAT'S obviously not plausible.






I seriously wish I could XP you for this.  Must spread some around, etc. etc.

If anyone wishes to continue this discussion re: plausibility, may I suggest that we fork the thread?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> There is a world of difference between claiming that you were abducted by aliens (a physical event, that would be verifiable if it had witnesses), and claiming that you enjoy playing an elf in a particular way. One has to do with something that actually happens, while the other describes a personal feeling.




I used a strawberry example earlier, and it was a clear example where I might say "I like strawberries" for motives other than actually liking strawberries.  Critical thinking still applies.

Interestingly enough, though, one can enjoy something that is bad.  There are many bad movies that I enjoy because they are so bad, and there are movies with bad elements that I enjoy because they have good elements as well.  And, of course, I might well enjoy a bad movie because I fail to recognize the bad elements in it.

(If you are a post-modernist the foregoing may seem meaningless to you; I am not a post-modernist.)

So, while I might accept the claim "I like X", I would not therefore conclude that "I like X" = "X is good".  Moreover, I would be more suspicious of the claim "Y likes X", especially if my experience was that X is something universally detrimental, such as being lit on fire.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that you are ignoring the format of the InterWeb here.




Not in the slightest.  The contrary, in fact.  A great many arguments around here start because someone fails to accept that another's person's stated experience is plausible.  As a social convention (as opposed to a matter of sheer logic) I think it is more important to cut folks some slack in such a forum, rather than less.






> And if, no matter what you say to Piratecat, I keep jumping in with A, you might find yourself addressing my claims even though you wouldn't actually choose to have that discussion with me in a pub over a pint.




This, has been covered a bit by prior points in the thread (like the "Never Give Up, Never Surrender".  But I will grant you that sometimes you do find yourself defending against A when A was never one of your points - largely because that is happening right now.

Aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot make great _reductio ad absurdum_type arguments, showing flaws in the logic at extremes, and thus calling it into question for many cases.  

The problem is that twice before (third time's a charm?) I have limited the context to talking about RPGs.  Whether or not the logic applies to Bigfoot sightings really isn't an issue, because these aren't Bigfoot forums.  We aren't talking about the plausibility of someone being probed by an alien, but of then having not seen (or not seen) a particular pathology with a given rule set, or playing elves, or somesuch.

Also, last time I checked, "accept as plausible" is not equivalent to 'take as gospel".  Choosing to grant that something might have happened is not taking as Word of God that it did happen.  The hyperbole really isn't constructive.  I'll guess somewhere upthread this was talked about as well - arguing against an artificially inflated version of my point isn't arguing against my point.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> A great many arguments around here start because someone fails to accept that another's person's stated experience is plausible.  As a social convention (as opposed to a matter of sheer logic) I think it is more important to cut folks some slack in such a forum, rather than less.




Out of curiosity, IYHO, does that cut both ways?  Should you also be willing to cut an equal amount of slack for someone's skepticism?  Would you claim that your own posting habits bear out the assertions you just made?



> This, has been covered a bit by prior points in the thread (like the "Never Give Up, Never Surrender".  But I will grant you that sometimes you do find yourself defending against A when A was never one of your points - largely because that is happening right now.




  If you want to make that claim, you may feel free to do so.  I, however, do not feel an obligation to therefore agree that it applies.  



> Aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot make great _reductio ad absurdum_type arguments, showing flaws in the logic at extremes, and thus calling it into question for many cases.




OK, imagine that you are on the Monty Haul TV show.  You know that there is a small amount of money behind one door, a car behind another, and behind the third a goat.  You've selected one of three doors, and do not know what's behind it.  Monty knows what's behind all of the doors.  Monty then opens another door, revealing the small amount of money.  The question is, to have the best odds of winning the car, do you switch doors, or keep the door you originally had?

The answer is, you switch doors.  The odds of you having picked the right door are 1 in 3, and the odds of the switched door being right are 2 in 3.  

Now, the fact is that quite a few people -- even well educated people -- fail to grasp this.  It seems as though the odds should be 50/50.  

If you use a more extreme example, however, the logical problems become clear.

For example, if there are 1 million doors, and you select one, and Monty opens all but the one you selected and the one other, revealing no car, the odds are only 1 in a million that you selected the right door.  Because Monty knows what is behind every door, he can open doors without changing the odds at all, so long as he doesn't open the door with the car behind it.  Chance is not involved with the doors Monty is opening.

Given that extreme example, most people can see the flaw in the initial logic that led them to believe that the odds were 50/50 in the first example.



> The problem is that twice before (third time's a charm?) I have limited the context to talking about RPGs.  Whether or not the logic applies to Bigfoot sightings really isn't an issue, because these aren't Bigfoot forums.




The logic you are attempting to use to determine the plausibility of foo is not dependent upon what foo is.  If you use an example that people will potentially find plausible, it may mask the error in reasoning (in the same way a faulty syllogism might seem like good logic because it results in a conclusion you like).  Again, if you use a more extreme example, however, the logical problems become (hopefully) clear.  

Rational thinking, and logic, are rational (and logical) regardless of what the objects discussed are.  If changing the objects discussed makes it obvious that the thinking isn't rational (or logical), it wasn't rational (or logical) before the objects were changed.

As you should well know, if you are employed in the sciences.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Another point, considering whether or not statements made about gaming can be more or less plausible.

Imagine that I make all of the following statements.  Which of them do you find plausible?  Which do you find provisionally plausible?  Which do you not find plausible at all?

Please keep in mind that I am referring to these statements, if made as part of a post about gaming, and if made by myself, Raven Crowking.  (The same statement made by another poster may be more, or less, plausible, IMHO, depending upon the poster in question.)

1.  In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not.

2.  I have never seen a player play a human character.

3.  IME, good prepwork leads to good GMing, although I have known GMs who do run amazing games without doing any prep.

4.  I run amazing games without doing any prep.

5.  In my experience, and IMHO, fudging is beneficial to the game.​
If you are capable of differentiating levels of plausibility between these statements, how did you do so?

I would submit that you did so on the basis of what you know about me, personally, through my posts, combined with what your experience of gaming is.  If you have some other method, I would love to hear about it.  After all, if it is a workable method, you will have attained something no one else has throughout all of history, and we would probably all like to share!

Or must you throw up your hands in despair, because you are unable to tell which statements you find the most and least plausible?


RC


----------



## Scribble (May 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Imagine that I make all of the following statements.  Which of them do you find plausible?  Which do you find provisionally plausible?  Which do you not find plausible at all?




All of them- what reason do I have to suspect you are lying to me?

Does my accepting your experiences might differ from my own force me to invalidate all my own experiences?

If not, then why should I feel your experiences are entirely unfounded, and you are for some reason lying to me, if for no other reason then  wanting to "win" on the internet?

(And no, I'm not perfect, I sometimes fall into the trap of wanting to prove someone wrong based on my own experiences differing from theirs... but I still think it's not a good thing, and that accepting what someone tells me is their experience at face value is much better for good conversation about a hobby I enjoy then telling them they're wrong for no other reason then what is essentially "I don't care.")


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Out of curiosity, IYHO, does that cut both ways?  Should you also be willing to cut an equal amount of slack for someone's skepticism?  Would you claim that your own posting habits bear out the assertions you just made?




For the first two - maybe and maybe.  

For the last, by and large, yes.  I'm sure that if you're looking for them, you'll find cases where you'll think that I fail.  I don't find that distressing, though - I admit my humanity, and hold no pretensions that ether of us is, or has ever been, perfect.



> If you want to make that claim, you may feel free to do so.  I, however, do not feel an obligation to therefore agree that it applies.




S'okay.  I am not trying to gain your personal agreement.  



> The logic you are attempting to use to determine the plausibility of foo is not dependent upon what foo is.




I am not trying to determine the plausibility of foo, by logic or otherwise.  I'm talking about when you may be better off accepting the plausibility _without proof_, for the sake of discussion.   



> Rational thinking, and logic, are rational (and logical) regardless of what the objects discussed are.




Yes, but as I have mentioned in other discussions - we are not on the planet Vulcan, and for us not all things are governed by pure logic.  Sometimes, we are better off not asking for things to be strictly logical, strictly proven at every step, but instead have them be _reasonable_, which is similar but not exactly the same.

You see, as a scientist, I can recognize that RPGs _aren't a science_.


----------



## Scribble (May 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You see, as a scientist, I can recognize that RPGs _aren't a science_.




Batman??? (Batmans a scientist.)


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but as I have mentioned in other discussions - we are not on the planet Vulcan, and for us not all things are governed by pure logic.  Sometimes, we are better off not asking for things to be strictly logical, strictly proven at every step, but instead have them be _reasonable_, which is similar but not exactly the same.
> 
> You see, as a scientist, I can recognize that RPGs _aren't a science_.



Well said, and this is the point I try to emphasize when I point out that we're discussing games of make believe. They're not serious business, they're fun things we like to do with our spare time, and talking about them isn't an exercise in formal logic.

Formal logic and reasoning is great for certain things, but it is not appropriate for all things; discussing how you prefer to pretend to be an elf being one of those many exclusions.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Batman??? (Batmans a scientist.)



_It's not Batman!_


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Scribble said:


> All of them- what reason do I have to suspect you are lying to me?




At least you are asking a fundamental question.

In addition to the question you are asking, though, you should ask "What reason do I have to suspect you are wrong?" and "What reason do I have to suspect you are exagerating?"



> Does my accepting your experiences might differ from my own force me to invalidate all my own experiences?




OK, let me jump into more obvious examples, getting closer to a less obvious example:

1.  I claim that, when playing D&D with you as the DM, I rolled a natural "20" on every die roll I make.  However, I do not wish you to look at the die; you should simply take my word for it.  It is my experience, in the game, that I am rolling these "20"s, and I expect you to believe it is so because I say that is my experience.

2.  You DM, sequentially, for several hundred persons over a wide geographic area.  In many of these cases, players stated a preference for foo, but when you introduced foo to the game, in exactly the manner they stated a preference for, in each and every case, the game ended with everyone unhappy specifically because of the foo.  Each of these players expresses disgust with the effects of foo on the game, and leaves, never to return.  Now, another group of players arrives, and they also express a preference for foo.  Do you give them the same credence you gave the hundreds of previous players, or have you learned from your experiences?  If you accept that they are telling you the truth, how does that relate to your previous experience?  If they also leave in disgust, what about the next group of players who say they love foo?  What about the next?  The next?  At what point do you stop assuming that the next group of "foo loving" players will know what they are talking about?

3.  A poster gets into a long and complicated discussion on EN World, claiming repeatedly that he believes fudging is a bad idea that damages the game in nearly every case.  Now he asks you if his statement of "In my experience, and IMHO, fudging is beneficial to the game" should be given the same credence as his statement of "In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not."  Do you conclude that these statements have equal claim to veracity?  Or do you maybe....just maybe....learn from prior experience?


RC


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Imagine that I make all of the following statements.  Which of them do you find plausible?




I find them all plausible statements for someone on these boards to make.  Could it be so?  If yes, then it is plausible.

That some of them may seem to contradict things you've said in the past does not render them implausible - I may be mistaken or have misunderstood, you may have misspoken earlier, you may have changed your mind, and so on.  I am more likely to ask about that seeming contradiction than cast a personal judgment about the plausibility.    



> Or must you throw up your hands in despair, because you are unable to tell which statements you find the most and least plausible?




Why should I despair?  Why do I care about ranking the plausibility of various statements of personal experience against each other?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I am not trying to determine the plausibility of foo, by logic or otherwise.




I am very glad to hear that.

If this is the case, "I don't accept the plausibility of foo" should be as fair and acceptable as "I accept the plausibility of foo", as far as you are concerned.

If one should sometimes say "okay" to "my experience is foo" for the sake of conversation, one should equally say "okay" to "my experience is that what you just said is implausible".

If there is a difference, please enlighten us.  



> Yes, but as I have mentioned in other discussions - we are not on the planet Vulcan, and for us not all things are governed by pure logic.




That is a good example of a Strawman, which is appropriate for this thread.  No one is claiming that we are on the planet Vulcan, or that all things are governed by pure logic.  Much like your comment about rpgs not being a science -- granted; no one has claimed that they are.

Your objections fail to answer the question.



> Sometimes, we are better off not asking for things to be strictly logical, strictly proven at every step, but instead have them be _reasonable_, which is similar but not exactly the same.




Yes, but, again, what defines a reasonable claim?

Solely one's own experience, and the application of rational thinking thereunto.  

If you have some other way to determine what is a reasonable claim, please share, because so far there has been not a peep of an answer to this from anyone. 

You will have done something that the greatest minds in the entire history of philosophy has failed to do!


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

deleted (see, I sometimes make my Wisdom check)


----------



## Scribble (May 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> 1.  I claim that, when playing D&D with you as the DM, I rolled a natural "20" on every die roll I make.  However, I do not wish you to look at the die; you should simply take my word for it.  It is my experience, in the game, that I am rolling these "20"s, and I expect you to believe it is so because I say that is my experience.




I never said anything about accepting plausibility means you automatically agree with their statement.  I said accepting their statement as plausible.




> 2.  You DM, sequentially, for several hundred persons over a wide geographic area.  In many of these cases, players stated a preference for foo, but when you introduced foo to the game, in exactly the manner they stated a preference for, in each and every case, the game ended with everyone unhappy specifically because of the foo.  Each of these players expresses disgust with the effects of foo on the game, and leaves, never to return.  Now, another group of players arrives, and they also express a preference for foo.  Do you give them the same credence you gave the hundreds of previous players, or have you learned from your experiences?  If you accept that they are telling you the truth, how does that relate to your previous experience?  If they also leave in disgust, what about the next group of players who say they love foo?  What about the next?  The next?  At what point do you stop assuming that the next group of "foo loving" players will know what they are talking about?




So... my choice is either accept they feel they like JOOKIE (it's plausible I'm sick of people saying foo in this thread) and do JOOKIE, or simply say they don't know what they're talking about and not do JOOKIE?

What good does that serve?

If I accept the plausibility of their statement, I can still counter with: In my own experience JOOKIE always leads to disaster... 

If they accept the plausibility of my statement, we can continue having an adult like conversation about the relative merits of adding JOOKIE to the game...

As opposed to simply getting one or more parties angry about either adding or not adding JOOKIE to the game.



> 3.  A poster gets into a long and complicated discussion on EN World,




This is not plausible.



> claiming repeatedly that he believes fudging is a bad idea that damages the game in nearly every case.  Now he asks you if his statement of "In my experience, and IMHO, fudging is beneficial to the game" should be given the same credence as his statement of "In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not."  Do you conclude that these statements have equal claim to veracity?  Or do you maybe....just maybe....learn from prior experience?




What am I learning? People aren't robots.  Sometimes their feelings about stuff change, sometimes people believe somewhat contradictory things at the same time. Sometimes their experiences are vastly different from my own.

If I accept that what they are saying to me is plausible, and I have no reason to believe they are intentionally lying to me, then I can have rational conversations with them about those experiences instead of arguing about who'e "right."

But, hey... it's plausible it's  a waste of time?

And now I think I'm going to strike "plausible" from my list of words to use within the next 2 years.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2010)

Well, you can, and obviously will, believe what you wish.  

So long as you don't expect me to follow you down the rabbit hole, I'm fine with that.


----------



## Scribble (May 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, you can, and obviously will, believe what you wish.
> 
> So long as you don't expect me to follow you down the rabbit hole, I'm fine with that.




I don't really care what you doe on the boards... (that's like Umbran and PCat's job...)  

I only make suggestions that I think would lead to better conversations about a subject I enjoy, and less looping debates that don't really have any meaningful outcome.

The only exception I make is if you say Bullywugs suck- cuz that's not plausible, because Bullywugs are awesome. (The reality would instead be that you suck.)


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

Scribble said:


> This is not plausible.



It took a while, but someone finally won this thread.



Scribble said:


> The only exception I make is if you say Bullywugs suck- cuz that's not plausible, because Bullywugs are awesome. (The reality would instead be that you suck.)



Bullywugs *are *awesome.


----------



## Hussar (May 13, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> 1.  In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not.
> 
> 2.  I have never seen a player play a human character.
> 
> ...




All of these statements are plausible.  I find #2 a bit unlikely due to the fact that human characters are so popular, but, it's still plausible.  Same with 4 and 5.  I have some difficultly believing that someone could run amazing games without any prep simply because of my personal experience.  Similarly, I have experienced games where fudging can work so, I can believe that one perhaps a bit easier.

But in no case should I state flatly, "No, you're wrong." because I have no real basis for saying so.  I could question how 4 was achieved - what is that person doing differently from me to achieve his results.  And, based on the answers he provides, I might decide that I don't believe him - either his definition of "prep" simply differs from mine (probably the most likely reason) or he has some ability which I lack which leads to a new decision about the plausibility of this ability (ex.  poster claims to have perfect recall of every monster manual and has no need to reference any book.  After being questioned about it, it turns out his recall is not perfect.  Thus, I am going to strongly disbelieve his claim.)



> 1. I claim that, when playing D&D with you as the DM, I rolled a natural "20" on every die roll I make. However, I do not wish you to look at the die; you should simply take my word for it. It is my experience, in the game, that I am rolling these "20"s, and I expect you to believe it is so because I say that is my experience.




This fails the plausibility test because, after about five rolls, the odds of you rolling a twenty each and every time is so astronomical that it is no longer believable to any sort of objective observer.  Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.



> 2. You DM, sequentially, for several hundred persons over a wide geographic area. In many of these cases, players stated a preference for foo, but when you introduced foo to the game, in exactly the manner they stated a preference for, in each and every case, the game ended with everyone unhappy specifically because of the foo. Each of these players expresses disgust with the effects of foo on the game, and leaves, never to return. Now, another group of players arrives, and they also express a preference for foo. Do you give them the same credence you gave the hundreds of previous players, or have you learned from your experiences? If you accept that they are telling you the truth, how does that relate to your previous experience? If they also leave in disgust, what about the next group of players who say they love foo? What about the next? The next? At what point do you stop assuming that the next group of "foo loving" players will know what they are talking about?




I make my arguement that in my experience, Foo doesn't work.  Because I've tried foo and it never works _for me_ I suggest that we don't do foo.  Perhaps a different DM with different styles can make Foo work, but, I accept my own limitations and I'm upfront about it.  It doesn't matter if Foo is fudging or a comedy game.  I've never been able to run what I consider a successful comedy game, despite trying a number of times.  Does that mean a comedy game is impossible to run?

You're learning the wrong lesson from your experience if, in your experience foo doesn't work, you claim that it cannot work ever for anyone.



> 3. A poster gets into a long and complicated discussion on EN World, claiming repeatedly that he believes fudging is a bad idea that damages the game in nearly every case. Now he asks you if his statement of "In my experience, and IMHO, fudging is beneficial to the game" should be given the same credence as his statement of "In my experience, some players like to play human characters, and some do not." Do you conclude that these statements have equal claim to veracity? Or do you maybe....just maybe....learn from prior experience?




In this case, no.  They are not equal.  "Some people like to play human characters" is very plausible and easily verifiable.  "Some people like fudging" is a bit harder to verify and probably less plausible.  There are more factors in play here with fudging than with character race preferences.

However, at no point should our putative poster decide that it is impossible for fudging to be beneficial, since there is fairly ample evidence from a number of sources, including official game rules ranging back for thirty years and included in EVERY edition of the game.  Essentially, our putative poster is deciding that because of his or her own inability to make something work, _no one_ can make it work.

Let me spin it around RC.

I could make the following claim:

- Sandbox games cannot work.  I've never seen a successful sandbox game in play as either a DM or a player.  They ultimately become aimless, pointless, meaningless jumbles of conflicting goals and will always die, not with a bang, but with a whimper as players and DM lose interest.

Does that mean that I'm right?  After all, this is my experience.  I've never seen a successful sandbox game based on how you describe a sandbox.  Should I learn from my experience and refuse to accept anyone's claims that a sandbox is different?


----------



## Hussar (May 13, 2010)

Just another thought to add to the wall of text.  Sorry about that.

Let's move away from the elephant in the room for a second and look at another example.  In 3e, a number of people complained that the CR/EL system didn't work.  It was totally borked and virtually unusable.  

Now, my experience was very different.  I found that the CR/EL system, while hardly perfect, worked largely as advertised.  I could use it rather nicely to judge the outcome of a given encounter.

So, should I conclude that all those people's experiences were invalid?  That they just didn't know what they were talking about?  Sure, I could have done that.  But, instead, I engaged the critics and started looking behind the complaints.  What were they doing differently than I was and a couple of commonalities leapt out very quickly:


Groups with more than 4 players
Very high (35+) point buy value characters

While this was hardly universal, it was very, very common.  So, it wasn't that their experience was invalid, it's that their game differed from mine in pretty significant ways (I almost always have only 4 players, and we played 27 point buy).  Looking at the guidelines for CR/EL, it became pretty obvious why these people were having different experiences.

But, there's the difference.  I could have simply written off their experiences.  They are having trouble with something that I don't, so, they're just wrong.  But, instead, step beyond the primary issue and look into the background.  What's different about their situation that gives rise to different experiences.  I've found that this explains almost every difference in play that we talk about on these boards.  

It's rarely the mechanics that cause the issues.  It's almost always external elements - grindy fights are caused by slow players+particular encounter design.  DM's in 3e used very large numbers of creatures in encounters because they almost always used classed humanoids which work fairly well.  People have these long, complex sandbox games because they have stable groups of players who have gamed together for years.  On and on and on.  

Discounting a differing experience based on my own personal experience rarely yields anything productive.


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If one should sometimes say "okay" to "my experience is foo" for the sake of conversation, one should equally say "okay" to "my experience is that what you just said is implausible".
> 
> If there is a difference, please enlighten us.




The difference is very simple - one cannot _experience_ plausibility.  Plausibility is a derived quantity, not an experience in and of itself.  So, the correct pair of statements would be, "My experience is foo" and "My experience leads me to think what you just said is implausible".

Question a person's report of their experience, and you question their truthfulness or personal observations.  Question a person's estimation of plausibility, and you are questioning their opinion.

Socially speaking (and all discussions are social events), these are by no means the same.  People's opinions fail to match all the time - questioning one's estimation of plausibility isn't much different from questioning their impression of a particular movie.  But if you want to appear arrogant, and to seem like you're calling others liars, by all means, publicly question the plausibility of their personal experiences when you weren't also present for them.




> Your objections fail to answer the question.




The point about Vulcan was not made in response to a particular question.


----------



## billd91 (May 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> However, at no point should our putative poster decide that it is impossible for fudging to be beneficial, since there is fairly ample evidence from a number of sources, including official game rules ranging back for thirty years and included in EVERY edition of the game.  Essentially, our putative poster is deciding that because of his or her own inability to make something work, _no one_ can make it work.
> 
> Let me spin it around RC.
> 
> ...




I've said similar things before so I'll add it again, I think a lot of the heat and hostility in debates on this board stem right from this issue here. People too often are unable to accept what people say at face value. It may be that they're really enamored with their own experiences, they think their experiences are universal, confirmation bias convinces them to count  posted experiences similar to their as evidence while discounting contrary ones, or any number of other reasons. 

But it naturally gets people's backs up because it basically says "You don't know what you're talking about. I know your experiences better than you." There are times in which that may actually be true because there are people with real delusions or who are really bad at understanding what their experiences mean, but that doesn't defuse the simmering resentment or anger.

If someone does believe, honestly believe, that their experiences are so strong that other people's experiences may be discounted or are wrong, you have to ask what purpose does it serve to say that? Is it being used to constructively further the topic of the thread? Is it being used to deflate another poster? What happens to the atmosphere of the thread if it is said? Are the consequences of saying it worth it? Are you compelled to say it because "someone on the internet is wrong"? Or is it better to describe your experiences without giving it in the form of a rebuttal?

It has been my experience that people play RPGs in a whole lot of different ways, some with widely spread commonalities and some highly idiosyncratic. There are some statements that I would consider highly improbable, even implausible, but very few of them actually deal with elements of playing style and campaign structure. There's far too much range and subtle variation of experience and preference for me to discount a lot there. Saying, however, that snorting coke off a hooker's hind quarters always makes the next die roll come out a natural 20, and I'm going to be a bit more skeptical. For one thing, the latter can be objectively verified (or disproved) by an outside observer. Objectively observing someone else's subjective experiences... not so easy, so I make more room for plausibility.


----------



## ggroy (May 13, 2010)

In practice, some people's minds are already made up.  Almost nothing in the world will change their minds.  For such individuals, they dig in their heels deeper and deeper whenever anybody attempts to challenge their belief systems (irrespective of how delusional or rational their beliefs are).


----------



## Fifth Element (May 13, 2010)

Can someone give billd91 some XP for me? His post deserves it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2010)

Hussar said:


> All of these statements are plausible.  I find #2 a bit unlikely due to the fact that human characters are so popular, but, it's still plausible.




Explain how you derive "the fact that human characters are so popular".



> I have some difficultly believing that someone could run amazing games without any prep simply because of my personal experience.  Similarly, I have experienced games where fudging can work so, I can believe that one perhaps a bit easier.




So, you use your experience as a gauge to determine how likely you think something is?  Perhaps you mean something other than "likely to be true" by "plausible"?

This site (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plausible) gives me three possible meanings:

1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.

2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.

3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking: "Ambitious, unscrupulous, energetic, ... and plausible,a political gladiator, ready for a 'set-to' in any crowd" (Frederick Douglass).​
If you mean that any statement may give a deceptive impression of truth, or be disingenuously smooth, I will accept that you are right.  If you mean "valid" specifically in the sense that "Boron has a valid right to express his views, regardless of how rational or irrational they may be", then I will agree.  If you mean likely or credible, then I am afraid critical thinking applies.



> But in no case should I state flatly, "No, you're wrong."




AFAICT, that is the biggest Strawman in the room.

AFAICT, no one is advocating saying "No, you're wrong."  What is, AFAICT, going on is equating "I don't find that plausible" with "No, you're wrong" as a means to "prove" that the position one speaker doesn't find plausible must be accepted without any critical thinking applied.  

Indeed, at least one poster has gone so far as to claim that rationality does not (or should not) apply in discussions of this nature.  

(I cannot even begin to tell you how that affects my perception of the plausibility of their other statements.)



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The point about Vulcan was not made in response to a particular question.




Just scoring points, then?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 13, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Bullywugs *are *awesome.




See?  There are some things we _*can*_ agree on.



Hussar said:


> You're learning the wrong lesson from your experience if, in your experience foo doesn't work, you claim that it cannot work ever for anyone.




Now, extrapolate out again, and assume that the putative poster has also seen hundreds of other GMs attempt foo, with the same results.  Should not that GM conclude that, while it might be possible for a GM to make foo work, the odds are very good that the average GM will not be able to do so?

For example, in this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5180342-post101.html), the poster says

I just don't see how you could sit down to play a session without any story elements at all. To me, it's an ongoing process, constantly being redefined as play progresses. But, the idea that there is nothing at all before the players sit down at the table is very difficult for me to believe.​
It seems to me that this poster is doing exactly what I am advocating.

He is not saying that it is impossible....he is saying that it is implausible (very difficult....to believe).  He might even go so far (although he does not in this post) as to accept that some specific counter-examples exist, but that he would assume that they were very rare indeed.

It would strike me as odd if the poster I just quoted would suggest that other posters not extrapolate from their experiences as to what is, or is not, plausible.



> Let me spin it around RC.




By all means.  



> I could make the following claim:
> 
> - Sandbox games cannot work.  I've never seen a successful sandbox game in play as either a DM or a player.  They ultimately become aimless, pointless, meaningless jumbles of conflicting goals and will always die, not with a bang, but with a whimper as players and DM lose interest.
> 
> Does that mean that I'm right?  After all, this is my experience.  I've never seen a successful sandbox game based on how you describe a sandbox.  Should I learn from my experience and refuse to accept anyone's claims that a sandbox is different?




You are only wrong because you used the word "cannot".

If you said instead,

I find claims of working sandbox games to be implausible.  I've never seen a successful sandbox game in play as either a DM or a player.  They ultimately become aimless, pointless, meaningless jumbles of conflicting goals and will always die, not with a bang, but with a whimper as players and DM lose interest.  There may be a sandbox game out there that defies the odds, but I am skeptical to most claims related to specific games.​
you would be golden.



RC


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2010)

But, RC, you have flatly stated that fudging cannot work.  That in every game, if the DM fudges, the players will be unhappy and the game will fall apart.

Shouldn't your own standard apply here?  If I shouldn't state that sandboxes cannot work (even when that follows my own experience) how can you state that fudging cannot work and that anyone who claims differently is misinterpreting the facts?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, RC, you have flatly stated that fudging cannot work.  That in every game, if the DM fudges, the players will be unhappy and the game will fall apart.





I think you should go back and read what I said, not what someone else said I said.

(I even said that I specifically believe that fudging does work in Piratecat's game -- that I specifically believe that he is an exception.)


RC


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think you should go back and read what I said, not what someone else said I said.
> 
> (I even said that I specifically believe that fudging does work in Piratecat's game -- that I specifically believe that he is an exception.)
> 
> ...




RC, I'm not going to go back and swim in that morass of a thread just to find the multiple quotes where you flatly state that fudging is always bad.  If you had said that you thought fudging was usually bad, but maybe it works for some people, do you really think we'd have not one but now two threads dozens of pages long devoted to arguing this?

So, to save me the work of screwing around playing silly bugger quoting games, what EXACTLY is your opinion of fudging?


----------



## Odhanan (May 14, 2010)

"If you play [insert pre-3e edition of D&D], it's just nostalgia."

"All fighters in First Ed AD&D play the same."

"Rules balance = game balance."


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2010)

Just to wrench back to the topic of the thread (thanks Odhanan)

 - The ability to ignore rules is a strength of a ruleset.

 - The absense of rules = rules light.


----------



## Maggan (May 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> - The absense of rules = rules light.




One I actually have encountered is:

"I know the rules of Game X by heart, therefore it is rules light."

/M


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> RC, I'm not going to go back and swim in that morass of a thread just to find the multiple quotes where you flatly state that fudging is always bad.




It is my opinion that fudging is always bad, in that I believe that there is always a preferred solution (although not always by the time the actual fudging occurs).  While I believe fudging is always bad, I agree that it is sometimes a necessary bad, that some people cannot achieve a preferred solution, and that some people's strengths and weaknesses as GMs combine so that they _*should not use*_ what would normally be a prefered solution.

I've been pretty explicit about this.

Let me put it into D&D terms for you, by way of analogy.  In 3e, the alignment descriptions say that killing is associated with evil, and that preserving life is associated with good.  I would argue that, in 3e, killing is always an evil act.  However, I would also argue that killing some creatures is often a necessary evil, for which PCs and NPCs alike should not be penalized.  In some cases....one may argue, in many cases....all one can do is weigh the situation to try to determine the lesser of two evils.

The difference between a "Good" character performing a necessary evil and an "Evil" character using expedient means (in 3e) is this:  The Good character views killing as a measure of last resort (albeit, in D&D, this last resort comes up frequently), whereas the Evil character believes killing is justified regardless of what is being killed, or what other options there were, so long as there are no obvious (or immediate) problems caused to that character as a result of his actions.

The Good character accepts and understands the larger implications; the Evil character either does not accept them, or does not understand them, or both.

(And please note that I am not claiming that fudging DMs are in any sense "evil"; that is a strawman I will not even respond to.)

Jump for a moment to the conversation you are having about illusionism with Celebrim.  If you understand his point (as I believe you do), you can see how what he calls "hard illusionism" may damage the experience of the game.  Fudging, specifically, is a form of hard illusionism.  IMHO, and in my argument, the good GM accepts and understands the larger implications; the poor GM either does not accept them, or does not understand them, or both.

And, again, please note the IMHO.  I am not claiming that what I view as a quality of poor GMing is the same as what you do.  You may love and admire qualities that I believe belong to poor GMing.  I am not arguing what your opinion is; I am stating what mine is.  That is another strawman that I will not follow up on any more.

It is not my opinion that "fudging cannot work. That in every game, if the DM fudges, the players will be unhappy and the game will fall apart." (as you characterized it.)

It is my opinion that "fudging is a generally bad decision.  If the DM fudges, the players are almost certain to discover it, which will lead to the game being less than what it could be.  If the DM is capable of resisting the urge to fudge -- especially if he can do so because he has elminated the urge through better prepwork -- the game will almost always be better.  There is a set of people to whom this does not apply, but IME it is a vanishingly small set, and if you tell me that you are one of them, I am not likely to accept that as plausible without some evidence that it is so."  (I went on to say that I do accept that Piratecat was a member of that vanishingly small set.)

There is a difference.

EDITS:  (1)  Even the hypothetical DM who I mentioned above, who should fudge, should nonetheless understand the potential pitfalls and problems associated with fudging.  IOW, if that DM is a good DM, it is very likely because he has an understanding of what he is doing, not because he somehow "lucked" into it.

(2)  A person who claims to be a member of that (IME vanishingly small) set of GMs who fudge successfully can evidence this by demonstrating an understanding of the potential pitfalls implied (as, IMHO, Piratecat has done).  A person who claims to be part of that set, while claiming that there are no pitfalls, that rationality doesn't apply, or that it doesn't matter because it's only a game, is actually demonstrating that they are very likely not part of that subset, IMHO and IME.  

EDIT EDIT:  I also specified that the foregoing only applies to role-playing *games* (using my definition of game, which is narrower than how some people use it, and which you may or may not agree with, but which you and I at least have discussed in length, and which came up at least tangentially in the first thread....though, luckily, others covered it so that I did not have to).  There are certainly role-playing _*activities*_ to which it does not apply.



> If you had said that you thought fudging was usually bad, but maybe it works for some people, do you really think we'd have not one but now two threads dozens of pages long devoted to arguing this?




Before?

I would have said No.

Now?

My experience has taught me otherwise.  


RC


----------



## billd91 (May 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, again, please note the IMHO. I am not claiming that what I view as a quality of poor GMing is the same as what you do. You may love and admire qualities that I believe belong to poor GMing. I am not arguing what your opinion is; I am stating what mine is. That is another strawman that I will not follow up on any more.
> 
> It is not my opinion that "fudging cannot work. That in every game, if the DM fudges, the players will be unhappy and the game will fall apart." (as you characterized it.)
> 
> ...




Yes, there's a difference - a *vanishingly small* difference. So you can understand why the difference in people's reactions between what you're saying here and "you are understanding your experiences wrong" would also be *vanishingly small*, I hope.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 14, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Yes, there's a difference - a vanishingly small difference. So can you understand why the difference in people's reactions between what you're saying here and "you are understanding your experiences wrong" would also be vanishingly small, I hope.




Given the proposition that 90% of the people in the world are boring, most people will assume that they are therefore boring, and object to the statement.  Some people, though, will assume that they are (or may be) the exceptions.  Some other people will simply decide that they don't care about the opinion of the speaker in the first place -- their estimates are different.

IOW, to the proposition "90% of all people are boring" you will hear different responses:

"Hey!  You think I'm boring!"  

"Hey!  You think I'm exceptional!"  

"Hey!  You don't know what you're talking about!"  ​
Why do people respond the way they do?  That's a question for philosophers and psychologists, I suppose.  Some might say there is a vanishingly small difference between "90% of all people are boring" and "You, you sir, there in the red shirt, *you* are boring."

And, as "vanishingly small" is a concept of valuation, one cannot make a claim that they are objectively wrong.

(Shrug)

If you don't see any substantive difference, I suppose there is no substantive difference for you.

I see a substantive difference.


RC


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I see a substantive difference.



There's also a substantive difference -- which continues to elude people -- between saying, "I think your experience is wrong," and "I think your description and interpretation of other folks' experience is wrong."

This is -- however formally one wants to reason -- an easy and important distinction to understand.  The failure to understand it and recognize its significance gives me, at least a lot of information.


----------



## Hussar (May 16, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> It is my opinion that "fudging is a generally bad decision. If the DM fudges, the players are almost certain to discover it, which will lead to the game being less than what it could be. If the DM is capable of resisting the urge to fudge -- especially if he can do so because he has elminated the urge through better prepwork -- the game will almost always be better.




This I pretty much agree with, with two added bits.  First, if the DM is fudging very often (and the definition of very will vary) then it is probably due to other issues at the table - either with the system, or with understanding the system.  Which, I suppose, would be alleviated by better prep work.

The second, is that for those issues that come up once in a very blue moon (DM rolls three attacks, all of them for criticals, all doing lots of damage for example) a bit of fudging may not be a bad thing, nor does it require reworking the system.



> There is a set of people to whom this does not apply, but IME it is a vanishingly small set, and if you tell me that you are one of them, I am not likely to accept that as plausible without some evidence that it is so." (I went on to say that I do accept that Piratecat was a member of that vanishingly small set.)




This is the part that people have an issue with.  It's completely unnecessary to add.  And it smacks so much of elitism.  "There might be people who can fudge successfully, but, if you claim that you can, I very likely won't believe you" is essentially what you're saying here.  Is this required?  Do you really need to add this to your definition?


----------



## jeffh (May 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> This is the part that people have an issue with.  It's completely unnecessary to add.  And it smacks so much of elitism.  "There might be people who can fudge successfully, but, if you claim that you can, I very likely won't believe you" is essentially what you're saying here.  Is this required?  Do you really need to add this to your definition?




There are people who are professional football players, navy SEALs, Peter Gabriel former Magic: the Gathering world champions, or Peter Gabriel (okay, _one_ person who is the latter) to name some claims I've seen people make online. That doesn't mean I automatically accept these claims as plausible. Those are perfectly appropriate occasions for going in skeptical and possibly revising that attitude as new evidence comes in.

Raven puts being a successful fudger in that category, and while I disagree with him I don't find his view outrageous, nor do I think he is anything other than sincere in holding it.


----------



## The Shaman (May 16, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> "If you play [insert pre-3e edition of D&D], it's just nostalgia."
> 
> "All fighters in First Ed AD&D play the same."
> 
> "Rules balance = game balance."



Quoted for truth, and because I have to spread experience points around . . .


----------



## Fifth Element (May 16, 2010)

Hussar said:


> This is the part that people have an issue with.  It's completely unnecessary to add.  And it smacks so much of elitism.  "There might be people who can fudge successfully, but, if you claim that you can, I very likely won't believe you" is essentially what you're saying here.  Is this required?  Do you really need to add this to your definition?



Indeed. It doesn't add anything to the argument. It smacks of semantic gamesmanship as well - "I'm not saying it _doesn't_ happen, I'm just saying that it happens so infrequently that it _effectively doesn't_ happen."

There's a vanishingly small difference between the two.


----------



## Hussar (May 17, 2010)

Well, all that aside, honestly, I don't think it's even really needed.

"Fudging is a heavy handed DM tool where the DM over rules the in game results.  While it is possible for fudging to have a positive result, usually, particularly if done frequently, it will break down the fourth wall, lead to players being very upset and will generally hurt your game."

To me, this is a pretty good summary of my views on fudging.  I don't have to get personal about it because, that definition will catch most of the bad stuff anyway.  My beef with how RC puts it is that it runs counter to what is written in every single DMG since AD&D 1.  Essentially, RC is saying that his views of the game trump the writers of the game over the past 30 years.  Never mind not believing random Internet guy, it's a pretty strong position to take when you're saying that you don't believe Gygax, Cooks, both Zeb and Monte, and every other person who was involved in developing the game.  

That's a pretty big leap to take.  Despite all the changes to edition, you can find a paragraph entitling the DM to fudge in every DMG produced.  IMO, that puts a pretty big flag on the top of the hill that says that fudging *can* be a good thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> My beef with how RC puts it is that it runs counter to what is written in every single DMG since AD&D 1.




Really?  3e, for example, says that the default is no fudging, and offers specific cautions about fudging.  4e offers the same cautions.  The only place I differ from those authors, AFAICT, is that they believe that the DM can probably fudge without being caught, whereas I believe that the players generally will catch on.  

What happens when the players catch on is described in 3e better than in 4e, if memory serves, but 4e also cautions against that very thing.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> This is the part that people have an issue with.  It's completely unnecessary to add.  And it smacks so much of elitism.  "There might be people who can fudge successfully, but, if you claim that you can, I very likely won't believe you" is essentially what you're saying here.  Is this required?  Do you really need to add this to your definition?




If you go back in the thread that spawned this part of the discussion, you will see that it was not orignally part of my posts.  It came about because, specifically, when I stated I was giving my "general" opinion, I was asked if I now worked in the Pentagon.    When I said I didn't believe what I was saying necessarily applied to everyone (and included an example of a person I believed it didn't apply to) I was accused of OneTrueWayism, arrogance, etc., etc.

So I made my position more clear.

You say, "This is the part that people have an issue with".  I say, "They had that issue before that part appeared".  I can only conclude that what people had an issue with was the general statment:

Fudging is a generally bad decision. If the DM fudges, the players are almost certain to discover it, which will lead to the game being less than what it could be. If the DM is capable of resisting the urge to fudge -- especially if he can do so because he has elminated the urge through better prepwork -- the game will almost always be better.​
That was, pretty much, all that was required to start the bally-hoo.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Hussar said:


> My beef with how RC puts it is that it runs counter to what is written in every single DMG since AD&D 1.  Essentially, RC is saying that his views of the game trump the writers of the game over the past 30 years.




Oh, back to topic....This is an example of "Appeal to Authority".

If folks didn't disagree with Gary, there would be no 3e and 4e.  Expecting no one to disagree with the WotC designers is bound to lead to disappointment.  



> Despite all the changes to edition, you can find a paragraph entitling the DM to fudge in every DMG produced.




I do not in any way, shape, or form, argue that the GM is not entitled to fudge.  I simply argue that it is a bad practice.



> IMO, that puts a pretty big flag on the top of the hill that says that fudging *can* be a good thing.




I think that puts a pretty big flag on the top of the hill that says

(1)  Lots of GMs fudge, and if we tell them it's a bad thing, they will be offended (as EN World has proven lately, IMHO),

(2)  Even though fudging is not generally recommended, there are times when it may be the lesser of two evils, 

(3)  Therefore, fudging should not be proscribed, but non fudging should be the default mode of the game.


RC


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2010)

Umm, no?  No one is offended by the idea that you shouldn't fudge.

People are offended by the idea that if you fudge, you will always be caught and your game will be poorer for it.  People are further offended when you discount nearly all evidence to the contrary by saying that they are actually misinterpreting their own experiences.

Saying that fudging is a bad idea is hardly a new or offensive idea.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2010)

Oh, and as far as "appeal to authority" well, yes and no.  It's an appeal to many authorities.  If it was only one, I'd agree with you.  However, EVERY DMG suggests that fudging can be used.  Not that it should be used all the time, but, they certainly don't say, 

"Fudging will always lead to a poorer game and with better prep you should never need to fudge".

Is appealing to *every * authority a fallacy?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Umm, no?  No one is offended by the idea that you shouldn't fudge.




I have firsthand experience of the contrary.



> People are offended by the idea that if you fudge, you will always be caught and your game will be poorer for it.




Where did you get the word "always" from?  Are you suggested that people are offended by what they are reading, or by what they are making up from what they are reading?  



> People are further offended when you discount nearly all evidence to the contrary by saying that they are actually misinterpreting their own experiences.




I cannot answer this sufficiently without getting threadbanned, because I cannot specifically answer to the quality of "evidence" given.

However, as has been noted time and again, my telling you somethng isn't evidence.  My telling you someone else's experiences is even less "evidence".  So, if I say, "I like my DM to fudge" that is at least me talking to my experience.  If I say, "My players like me to fudge" that is me claiming to know someone else's experience.

I was given three specific examples where people claimed fudging was good.  One example seemed to me to be trying to score points, and seemed more concerned with having an ironclad argument than with exploring the issue in good faith.  Both the first and the second demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to apply rational thinking to the discussion.  For these reasons, I dismissed their anecdotes as implausible.  The third individual, who did not supply testimony himself, I accepted as being exceptional (within the bounds of my experience).

So, to be clear, I accepted 1/3rd of all cases presented.

EDIT:  In this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5185608-post153.html), Plane Sailing replies to Neonchameleon.  Neonchameleon says "I read 4e stat blocks and just know it afterwards."  Plane Sailing replies "Then you are a god among men in memory terms".  Should people find this offensive?  AFAICT, "Then you are a god among men" is pretty well equal to "Then you are a member of a vanishingly small set".  

EDIT EDIT:  I would bet that it wouldn't be hard to find a number of other posts, including by those who are offended, that either (1) make use of the idea of a "vanishingly small set" or that discriminate information based upon the source.  In fact, I would expect that it would be extremely easy to do so.  This also makes me leery of the offense taken, and makes me question whether the offense is based less upon the question raised ("Why should I believe this, when it flies in the face of my experience?"), but more upon the (potential) answer.



> Saying that fudging is a bad idea is hardly a new or offensive idea.




Hardly new, but apparently offensive to some.



Hussar said:


> Oh, and as far as "appeal to authority" well, yes and no.  It's an appeal to many authorities.  If it was only one, I'd agree with you.  However, EVERY DMG suggests that fudging can be used.  Not that it should be used all the time, but, they certainly don't say,
> 
> "Fudging will always lead to a poorer game and with better prep you should never need to fudge".
> 
> Is appealing to *every * authority a fallacy?




It is a fallacy to say that an idea is wrong on the basis of appeal to authority.

If your beef with how I put it is that "it runs counter to what is written in every single DMG since AD&D 1" or that I am saying that my "views of the game trump the writers of the game over the past 30 years", then, yes, that is strictly an appeal to authority.

Hussar, I certainly hope that your views of the game, _*within your opinion of how it is best to be run*_, trump the writers of the game over the past 30 years, for you.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 18, 2010)

*Appeal to Authority*

I think that this idea could use a little more input.



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority said:
			
		

> There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious.




The interesting thing about this is that my statements about my experience are a sort of appeal to authority.  Whether or not you believe my statements is based upon whether or not you trust me to correctly remember and interpret my experience, and whether or not you trust me to be honest in my statements.  

The first is based, at least partially, upon how honest you believe I am with myself, and whether or not you believe I apply rational thinking to my own beliefs.  This last in based, in turn, at least partially upon your prior experience of me, and your perception of whether or not I have ulterior motives in the statements I am making.

For instance, say you and I were discussing oof and foo.

I accepted that it was better, in general, to oof than to foo, but argued that foo was good because it was not always possible to oof.  I further accepted that, in general, the better one oofed, the less one had to foo.  Further, I accepted that, in general, the more one applied oof, the better the outcome than if one applied foo to cover the lack of oof.

But I foo, and fooing is much easier than oofing.  And I protest that, despite the foregoing, foo is not only acceptable, but my players prefer I foo.  And, I begin to claim that the idea that it is better to oof than foo is insulting.  And, I claim that you should not be using critical thinking to examine the issue.

Hmmm.

Under those circumstances, is my authority enhanced?  Or do you have reasonable grounds to suspect that my authority is compromised?

I think you know my answer.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> EDIT:  In this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5185608-post153.html), Plane Sailing replies to Neonchameleon.  Neonchameleon says "I read 4e stat blocks and just know it afterwards."  Plane Sailing replies "Then you are a god among men in memory terms".  Should people find this offensive?  AFAICT, "Then you are a god among men" is pretty well equal to "Then you are a member of a vanishingly small set".




Interestingly, Benimoto isn't offended.  In this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/5185888-post162.html) he writes "I find this kind of statement slightly surprising because back when I was DMing 3e a lot, I considered myself somewhat of a god among men for remembering how gaze attacks worked."

It bears out something I said earlier:



Raven Crowking said:


> IOW, to the proposition "90% of all people are boring" you will hear different responses:
> 
> "Hey!  You think I'm boring!"
> 
> ...





RC


----------

