Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7515074" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Bollocks. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority" target="_blank">Even Wikipedia has noticed that it's not</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">An <strong>argument from authority</strong>, also called an <strong>appeal to authority</strong>, or <strong>argumentum ad verecundiam</strong> is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.</p><p></p><p>(NB: <em>fallacy</em> is not a synonym for <em>logical fallacy</em>.)</p><p></p><p>Nearly everything that you (or any poster on this thread) knows, you know because you learned it from an authority. If you didn't accept authoritative opinion as good evidence, you would have to abaondon basically all your beliefs about history, geography, science, mathematics, and stuff that happens every day outside your hometown.</p><p></p><p>"What foks say" is largely the opposite of authority (unless you're talking about stuff that happened at the shopping centre down the street).</p><p></p><p>Evidence available to whom? What's the evidence that New York was settled before the 18th century? Other than a book (= the dreaded "authority"!)</p><p></p><p>An argument that can be reasonable is not a logical fallacy. It's not even an informal fallacy. As Wikipedia notes, it's defeasible. Given that basically every argument anyone ever runs outside of mathematics is defeasible, that's not a very telling blow against it.</p><p></p><p>As far as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s claim is concerned, two things:</p><p></p><p>(1) Either Hussar's an English teacher, or has been working hard to maintain the online facade of being an English teacher for over a decade. Given that there's little reason for someone to do the latter, and given that his reports about English teaching and challengs of cross-cultural education have always seemed coherent enough to me, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.</p><p></p><p>(2) I'm not an English teacher - I'm an academic lawyer and philosopher - and I know that Hussar is 100% correct when he says that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is 100% wrong to say that " 'On a hit, roll damage' is equal to 'On a miss, don't roll damage.' It's just the way language works."</p><p></p><p>The instruction that, on a hit, one must roll damage, doesn't <em>forbid </em>anyone from rolling damage on a miss. It probably implies that "On a miss, you don't need to roll damage" but the absence of an obligation isn't the same thing as being forbidden - the absence of an obligation is consistent with a permission. Which was [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s point.</p><p></p><p>Of course if there is not hit, and damage is rolled, no hit point reduction will take place. But that's a different thing. [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s point is that the combat rules don't forbid rolling to hit and damage together (and the absence of doubt about this is simply reinforced by the fact that the DMG advises rolling them together!).</p><p></p><p>This is hilarious! Why is a map evidence? Because it's a source of authority! Why is a citizen of France's testimony evidence? Because s/he is an authority on his/her own country!</p><p></p><p>The fact that the only sources of evidence that you can think of for the status of Paris as the capital of France are authorities is enough to prove my point!</p><p></p><p>(What would count as evidence for the status of Paris that is <em>not</em> evidence from authority? For capital cities it's very hard, because even if you asked Emmanuel Macron the only evidence that you have that he is President of France is because authorities, like news broadcasts, told you so! The direct evidence, unmediated by authoritative testimony, to establish a socio-political fact like that is incredibly complicated because it involves patterns of behaviour distributed across a wide swathe of social actors.)</p><p></p><p>I'm not an attorney. I'm an academic lawyer.</p><p></p><p>And yes, authorities can be wrong. That's why argument from authority is defeasible. But as I already posted, practically every bit of inference you engage in is defeasible. For a good discussion of what bits of your "knowledge" you would have to erase if you resolved to accept only non-defeasible inference I recommend Bertrand Russell's <em>The Problems of Philosophy</em>. Short answer: practically all of it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7515074, member: 42582"] Bollocks. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority]Even Wikipedia has noticed that it's not[/url]: [indent]An [B]argument from authority[/B], also called an [B]appeal to authority[/B], or [B]argumentum ad verecundiam[/B] is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.[/indent] (NB: [I]fallacy[/I] is not a synonym for [i]logical fallacy[/i].) Nearly everything that you (or any poster on this thread) knows, you know because you learned it from an authority. If you didn't accept authoritative opinion as good evidence, you would have to abaondon basically all your beliefs about history, geography, science, mathematics, and stuff that happens every day outside your hometown. "What foks say" is largely the opposite of authority (unless you're talking about stuff that happened at the shopping centre down the street). Evidence available to whom? What's the evidence that New York was settled before the 18th century? Other than a book (= the dreaded "authority"!) An argument that can be reasonable is not a logical fallacy. It's not even an informal fallacy. As Wikipedia notes, it's defeasible. Given that basically every argument anyone ever runs outside of mathematics is defeasible, that's not a very telling blow against it. As far as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s claim is concerned, two things: (1) Either Hussar's an English teacher, or has been working hard to maintain the online facade of being an English teacher for over a decade. Given that there's little reason for someone to do the latter, and given that his reports about English teaching and challengs of cross-cultural education have always seemed coherent enough to me, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. (2) I'm not an English teacher - I'm an academic lawyer and philosopher - and I know that Hussar is 100% correct when he says that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is 100% wrong to say that " 'On a hit, roll damage' is equal to 'On a miss, don't roll damage.' It's just the way language works." The instruction that, on a hit, one must roll damage, doesn't [I]forbid [/I]anyone from rolling damage on a miss. It probably implies that "On a miss, you don't need to roll damage" but the absence of an obligation isn't the same thing as being forbidden - the absence of an obligation is consistent with a permission. Which was [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s point. Of course if there is not hit, and damage is rolled, no hit point reduction will take place. But that's a different thing. [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s point is that the combat rules don't forbid rolling to hit and damage together (and the absence of doubt about this is simply reinforced by the fact that the DMG advises rolling them together!). This is hilarious! Why is a map evidence? Because it's a source of authority! Why is a citizen of France's testimony evidence? Because s/he is an authority on his/her own country! The fact that the only sources of evidence that you can think of for the status of Paris as the capital of France are authorities is enough to prove my point! (What would count as evidence for the status of Paris that is [I]not[/I] evidence from authority? For capital cities it's very hard, because even if you asked Emmanuel Macron the only evidence that you have that he is President of France is because authorities, like news broadcasts, told you so! The direct evidence, unmediated by authoritative testimony, to establish a socio-political fact like that is incredibly complicated because it involves patterns of behaviour distributed across a wide swathe of social actors.) I'm not an attorney. I'm an academic lawyer. And yes, authorities can be wrong. That's why argument from authority is defeasible. But as I already posted, practically every bit of inference you engage in is defeasible. For a good discussion of what bits of your "knowledge" you would have to erase if you resolved to accept only non-defeasible inference I recommend Bertrand Russell's [I]The Problems of Philosophy[/I]. Short answer: practically all of it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
Top