False dichotomies and other fallacies RPGers use

[Piratecat]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.