Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6597875" data-attributes="member: 996">Of course.&nbsp; That's why discussions like this so often touch on more formal logic, because that's a way of avoiding such things.Instead of going with how the explanation of 'dissociative mechanics' makes you feel on a read-through when you want to believe it, look at the actual rationales used, the standards by which things were judged 'dissociative.'&nbsp; See if they're valid, if they can be applied elsewhere.&nbsp; Instead of just rejecting the explanation of 'dissociative mechanics,' because you disagree with the conclusion, or because the writer had been verbally attacking WotC like maniac for the previous year, actually look at how they're presented and defined.&nbsp; Is it really just a rant, or is there an objective definition that can be isolated from it?&nbsp; Is it really driven by bias, or can it be applied disinterestedly with consistently similar results?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6597875, member: 996"] Of course. That's why discussions like this so often touch on more formal logic, because that's a way of avoiding such things. Instead of going with how the explanation of 'dissociative mechanics' makes you feel on a read-through when you want to believe it, look at the actual rationales used, the standards by which things were judged 'dissociative.' See if they're valid, if they can be applied elsewhere. Instead of just rejecting the explanation of 'dissociative mechanics,' because you disagree with the conclusion, or because the writer had been verbally attacking WotC like maniac for the previous year, actually look at how they're presented and defined. Is it really just a rant, or is there an objective definition that can be isolated from it? Is it really driven by bias, or can it be applied disinterestedly with consistently similar results? [/QUOTE]

Verification