D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

But that’s not my claim. Maybe ask me about my belief instead of making silly assumptions about it?

I thought you said this:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority​

'Appeal to Authority​

argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority .'

Here's some evidence of the proper definition.

I have no evidence, other than the testimony of authorities, about the workings of radioactive decay, what some decay sequences are, what some typical decay products are, and what the affects are on health of being exposed to radiation.

I have no supporting evidence, other than the testimony of other authorities (eg all the physics textbooks agree).

According to what you quoted, it is a fallacy to insist that what I have been told is true. I regard that as obviously wrong.

 

[The Firebird]

Appeal to an authority is not a fallacy. For instance, I believe that exposure to radiation in large doses is harmful to human health. Why? Because I was told as much by someone who knows more about it than me (ie an authority). Authorities are the basis for most of my knowledge outside my particular fields of expertise, and for some of my knowledge within it.

And just the other day I was explaining to someone the law that governs assignment of title to chattels. Why did they believe me? Because they trusted that I'm an authority! Were they rational to believe me? Yes, because at the level of detail we were discussing I am an authority, having read some of the major cases and having been teaching it for years.

That is not what the fallacy is, the fallacy is about a perceived authority, not an actual authority.
What you are describing are actual authorities, not perceived authorities.

The fallacy isn't in asking an authority. It's when an authority says "I'm right about this because I'm the expert" rather than backing up their reasoning.

In this context, "Game designer X says Y so Y is right" is fallacious. "Game designer X has a good explanation for Y...it sounds like Z. Therefore I believe Y" is not .

 

[Maxperson]

An appeal to authority is fallacious in the case where the authority isn't a credible responder to the question being asked.

The reason those experts are questioned is to allow the jury or judge to make a considered decision on the relative credibility of each witness. If calling expert witnesses was entirely fallacious, it wouldn't keep happening!

It keeps happening, because it's super easy to get experts to say just about anything you want. At that point you just hope your expert is more convincing than the other expert.

An Appeal to Authority is always fallacious if that's all you have to support your claim.

 

[FrogReaver]

The fallacy isn't in asking an authority. It's when an authority says "I'm right about this because I'm the expert" rather than backing up their reasoning.

In this context, "Game designer X says Y so Y is right" is fallacious. "Game designer X has a good explanation for Y...it sounds like Z. Therefore I believe Y" is not .

Right, it hinges on the explanation, not the authority.

 

[pemerton]

The fallacy isn't in asking an authority. It's when an authority says "I'm right about this because I'm the expert" rather than backing up their reasoning.

As it happens, I know some pretty serious pure mathematicians.

They can tell me some things that I can (almost) make sense of. I believe them. It would be pointless for me to ask them to back up their reasoning - I wouldn't understand it.

This generalises across most fields of technical expertise.

The reason I believe the electrician who tells me that the wiring in my house is safe after inspecting it is because they're a qualified electrician. That's not fallacy, that's accepting the distribution of knowledge and expertise that is part and parcel of human society.

 

[Maxperson]

Because why not? The characters are traveling. We should assume all sorts of things they do while traveling. Foraging and hunting would be logical things to expect.

Because it often doesn't happen. Assuming something that will often be wrong is a very faulty assumption to make.

I never said I was doing it “like you do”.
You said the method I’m talking about won’t allow for herb gathering. I showed how it can allow for herb gathering.

Problem solved.

So your solution was to agree with me that you can retcon it and it's not like what we do, and then announce that you solved a problem. What was the point of that?

I don’t care about “in the moment”. That’s not what the problem was. We’re talking about two different methods. You said one could not do what the other did. I showed you how it could.

No. No you didn't. You completely failed to show how you can do it in the moment like we can.

Now you’re trying to say that doesn’t matter because it wasn’t the same method. I mean… of course it’s not!

And then. I said it from the beginning man. It's not a new revelation that I'm "springing" on you.

I mean… there certainly seems to he far more in common between the two, but okay, Max.

Ours: Happens in the moment and fixes the fiction from then on out. And we get herbs.
Yours: Retcons something into the past which alters the fiction retroactively. And you get herbs.

Getting herbs isn't even most of it, let alone enough to be "far more in common."

 

[TwoSix]

An Appeal to Authority is always fallacious if that's all you have to support your claim.

Yes, exactly. But that’s why you reference experts, they have access to the evidence to support the claims they’re making.

But I’m not getting into the weeds on this, posting about logical fallacies is pretty much the “farting loudly” of online discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What you're describing is the 100% realism strawman. The idea that, because one's priority is verisimilitude, and perfect verisimilitude isn't possible, one's priority is nonsensical. Throwing the concept of hit points out as a counterpoint is another example. There are places in my game where I bow to abstraction and practicality at the table. I am, believe it or not, not filled with shame about this, and continue to value setting logic and an Earth-like reality (sans fantasy elements), whenever possible.

What I find weird is that you will post again and again that realism, causality etc are fundamental to your enjoyment of RPGing. But then you like this post from Maxperson:
So you appear to agree that the sequence of resolution in D&D combat does not conform to forwards-only causality and is, in that respect at least, not realistic.

So someone like me gets confused. Because that seems to suggest that (i) you don't enjoy D&D combat, or (ii) you don't regard it as RPGing, or (iii) you can enjoy RPGing that doesn't conform to realism, forward-facing causality, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Appeal to an authority is not a fallacy. For instance, I believe that exposure to radiation in large doses is harmful to human health. Why? Because I was told as much by someone who knows more about it than me (ie an authority).

That would be foolish. Presumably you also learned about radiation and the impact it has on the human body at some point in your schooling. You may not be an expert in the field, but you have more than just some guy told you so with nothing else to back it up.

And just the other day I was explaining to someone the law that governs assignment of title to chattels. Why did they believe me? Because they trusted that I'm an authority! Were they rational to believe me? Yes, because at the level of detail we were discussing I am an authority, having read some of the major cases and having been teaching it for years.

Experts in law disagree about interpretations of law all the time.

Here's a huge issue here, though. It takes about 10k hours to become an expert in something. I've been playing and engaging in continuing education about D&D and other RPGs for more hours than that. So have many others here. You probably have as well. We are in a situation of dueling experts at this moment, and plenty of us don't agree with your expert.

 

[The Firebird]

As it happens, I know some pretty serious pure mathematicians.

They can tell me some things that I can (almost) make sense of. I believe them. It would be pointless for me to ask them to back up their reasoning - I wouldn't understand it.

This generalises across most fields of technical expertise.

The reason I believe the electrician who tells me that the wiring in my house is safe after inspecting it is because they're a qualified electrician. That's not fallacy, that's accepting the distribution of knowledge and expertise that is part and parcel of human society.

If you pressed them on it, they could explain it though. And I suspect they'd be willing to.

Do you think game design is so arcane that we have to listen to the experts in this way? That would explain Vincet Baker's adoption of...prophet stance, in the writings quoted earlier.